| Case ID |
37ad7424-9f78-404a-93a3-9938199b22fc |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
APPEAL FROM ORIGINAL DECREE Nos. 201, 202 AND 203 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 30, 1962 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court quashed the order passed by the Central Board of Revenue and granted an injunction against the assessment orders. The High Court ruled that the place of assessment determined by the Commissioner cannot be challenged in civil court. The assessment proceedings initiated under section 34 were justified as income had escaped assessment due to non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee. The court held that civil courts have no jurisdiction to question the legality of the assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act. The plaintiff's challenges were deemed invalid as he failed to raise objections before the proceedings commenced, thus waiving his right to contest the jurisdiction of the tax authorities. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the tax liabilities of Raja BahaDUR Kamakhya Narain Singh, who contested the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer after several transfers of his assessment cases. The Patna High Court upheld the validity of the Commissioner’s transfer orders and concluded that the income tax assessments were legitimate under the Income Tax Act of 1922. The court emphasized that the Income Tax Act is a comprehensive code that excludes civil court jurisdiction over tax assessments, thereby affirming that tax matters should be addressed through the prescribed statutory channels. The decision clarified the scope of civil court jurisdiction, especially in tax-related disputes, highlighting important legal principles regarding the waiver of rights and the procedural integrity of tax assessments. Key takeaways include the importance of timely objections in tax matters and the limitations of civil court intervention in tax assessments. |
| Court |
Patna High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
KANHAIYA SINGH,
RAMRATNA SINGH
|
| Lawyers |
A.C. Sampath Iyengar,
Lalnarain Sinha,
Balbadhra Prasad,
S.K. Jha,
Madan Mohan Prasad,
S.N. Dutta,
R.J. Bahadur
|
| Petitioners |
Raja BahaDUR Kamakhya Narain Singh
|
| Respondents |
Union of India
|
| Citations |
1964 SLD 212,
(1964) 51 ITR 596,
(1969) 9 TAX 355
|
| Other Citations |
Attorney-General v. Aramayo [1925] 9 Tax Cas. 415,
Bachu Koer v. Golab Chand [1899] ILR 27 Cal. 272,
Bennett & White (Calgary) Ltd. v. Municipal District of Sugar City [1951] AC 786 (PC),
Bidi Supply Co. v. UOI [1956] 29 ITR 717 (SC),
Calcutta Discount Co. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC),
Central Potteries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1962] 13 STC 472 (SC),
Chatturam v. CIT [1947] 15 ITR 302 (FC),
Chokkalinga Pillay v. Velayudha Mudaliar AIR 1925 Mad. 117
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
5(5),
147,
124
|