| Case ID |
03f5fecb-a3d2-49c4-a78f-73139bbd5d54 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
20810 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 1957 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of India held that section 5(7A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and does not impose unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to carry on trade as enshrined in Article 19(1)(g). The Court found that the power to transfer cases vested in the Commissioner or the Central Board of Revenue is not arbitrary and is guided by the objectives of efficient tax collection. The petitioners, oil mill owners and merchants, challenged the validity of transfers made by the Central Board of Revenue, asserting that these transfers were discriminatory and violated their rights. However, the Court concluded that the provisions allowing such transfers were necessary for administrative convenience and did not infringe upon the rights of the assessees. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the constitutional validity of section 5(7A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which empowers the Commissioner of Income-tax to transfer cases from one Income-tax Officer to another. The petitioners, who were engaged in the oil milling business, contested that such transfers were arbitrary and discriminatory, infringing on their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined the implications of these transfers on the rights of the assessees and the administrative convenience required for effective tax collection. The Court ultimately upheld the validity of the law, asserting that while the transfers may cause inconvenience, they do not constitute a violation of constitutional rights. This landmark decision highlights the balance between administrative efficiency and individual rights in the context of income tax assessment. Relevant keywords include 'Income-tax Act', 'constitutional validity', 'administrative convenience', 'fundamental rights', and 'tax collection efficiency'. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of India
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
N.H. Bhagwati,
T.L. Jagannadhadas,
B.P. Sinha,
S.K. Das
|
| Lawyers |
N.C. Chatterjee,
A.K. Sen,
B.P. Maheswari,
Tarachand Brijmohan Lal,
V.S. Sawhney,
D.N. Mukherjee,
Purushottam Tricumdas,
C.P. Lal,
S.C. Isaacks,
K.R. Chaudhury,
Bhagwati Das,
M.L. Kapur,
C.K. Daphtary,
G.N. Joshi,
Porus A. Mehta,
R.H. Dhebar,
B. Sen,
P.K. Ghosh,
P.K. Bose
|
| Petitioners |
Pannalal Binjraj
|
| Respondents |
Union of India
|
| Citations |
1957 SLD 136,
(1957) 31 ITR 565
|
| Other Citations |
Bidi Supply Co. v UOI [1956] 29 ITR 717 (SC),
Brundaban Chandra Dhir Narendra v. State of Orissa (Revenue Department) [1952] ILR 1952 Cuttack 529,
Dayaldas Kushiram v. CIT [1940] 8 ITR 139 (Bom.),
Dinabandu Sahu v. Jadumoni Mangaraj AIR 1954 SC 411,
Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 224,
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 362,
Himmatlal Harilal Mekta v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 403,
Keshavan Madhavan Menon v. State of Bombay AIR 1951 SC 128,
Lakshmanan Chettiar v. Commissioner, Corpn. of Madras, & Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes [1927] ILR 50 Mad. 130,
Lakshmanappa Hanumantappa Jamkhandi v. UIO AIR 1955 SC 3,
Matajog Dobey v. H.S. Bhari [1955] 2 SCR 925,
People of the State of New York v. John E. Van De Carr [1905] 199 U.S. 552,
Ratanlal Gupta v. District Magistrate of Ganjam ILR 1951 Cuttack 441,
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75,
Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. v. A.V. Visvanatha Sastri [1954] 26 ITR 1 (SC),
Syed Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad [1953] SCR 589,
A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkitachalam Potti [1956] 20 ITR 349 (SC),
Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT, Sind & Baluchistan [1945] 13 ITR 39 (Mad.),
Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356, 373; 30 L. Ed. 220
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961,
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
127,
124,
5(7A),
64
|