LALJI HARIDAS CHHOTALAL HARIDAS Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER :M D KARNIK
LAWS(SC)-1961-7-9
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
July 25,1961
LALJI HARIDAS,CHHOTALAL HARIDAS
Appellant
VERSUS
INCOME TAX OFFICER,M.D.KARNIK
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
MAHAMAYA DASSI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1978-2-52] [REFERRED TO]PILANI INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(CAL)-1966-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
NARSINGDAS BANGUR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER CENTRAL [LAWS(CAL)-1969-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
SH. VIRBHADRA SINGH VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE SHIMLA, INCOME TAX OFFICE AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-91] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVRATAN G. MOHATTA VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1979-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
DHFL VENTURE CAPITAL FUND VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(BOM)-2013-6-47] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. PUNAM CHAND BANTHIA [LAWS(CAL)-1977-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
MUNIM CHHAP BIDI AGENCY VS. SALES TAX OFFICER [LAWS(MPH)-1987-10-27] [REFERRED TO]
FINIMOLE T P VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [LAWS(KER)-2008-7-77] [REFERRED TO]
INDRA CO LTD VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(CAL)-1970-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA BAHADUR KAMAKHYA NARAIN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1962-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
DAYABAI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(MPH)-1985-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
BANARSI DASS VS. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX [LAWS(ALL)-1969-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
PRATIBHA SINGH VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE SHIMLA, INCOME TAX OFFICE & ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-219] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK SINGH VS. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER, ESTATE DUTY, A WARD [LAWS(CAL)-1973-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. COCHIN COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(KER)-1975-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
EAST COAST COMMERCIAL COMPANY LTD VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(CAL)-1980-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
GAURHARI SINGHANIA VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER [LAWS(ALL)-1984-11-53] [REFERRED TO]
TRILOK SINGH DHILLON VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [LAWS(CHH)-2010-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
ANSAL PAPERS THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SRI DEEPAK ANSAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-237] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA BAHADUR KAMAKHYA NARAIN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1962-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
SIDH GOPAL GAJANAND VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(ALL)-1968-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
JIYAJEERAO COTTON MILLS LTD VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER C WARD [LAWS(CAL)-1976-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-49] [REFERRED TO]
BHATIA MOTOR STORES VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(MPH)-2005-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(ALL)-1991-9-77] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMPA PROPERTIES P LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1986-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(DLH)-1985-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
DALMIA R VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1971-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGMAL SAUDAGAR MAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-172] [REFERRED TO]
HAJI ABDUL GAFFAR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(MPH)-1984-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH CHANDRA KHAN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER A WARD [LAWS(CAL)-1975-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KUMAR CHANDRA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1980-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPCHAND DAGA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(MPH)-1968-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Gajendragadkar, J. -
(1.)These two appeals arise out of two writ petitions filed by the two appellants who are brothers, Lalji Haridas and Chhotalal Haridas, against the respective Income-tax Officers in their areas. Lalji Haridas, who is a resident of Jamnagar, filed Special Civil Application No. 132 of 1957 in the High Court of Judicature, Bombay, at Rajkot, challenging the validity of the notices issued against him by the Income-tax Officer, Ward A, at Jamnagar under section 23(2) of the Income Tax Act, claiming appropriate writ or order restraining the said Income-tax Officer from taking any further proceedings under the said notices. This petition was summarily dismissed by the High Court and the application made by Lalji for a certificate to file an appeal in this court was also rejected. Thereupon he applied for and obtained special leave from this court. It is with special leave granted to him that Lalji has brought his appeal before this court.
(2.)Chhotalal, who is a resident of Bombay, filed Special Civil Application No. 374 of 1960 in the High Court at Bombay, challenging the validity of the notices issued against him by the Fourth Income- tax Officer, Ward G, and claiming appropriate writ or order restraining the said officer from taking any further proceedings under the said notices. This application was summarily dismissed by the High Court and Chhotalals request for a certificate was likewise rejected. Chhotalal then applied for and obtained special leave from this court, and that is how his appeal has come to this court.
(3.)In the notices issued by the respective Income-tax Officers against the two appellants an enquiry is proposed to be held in regard to the liability to pay tax on the alleged total income of Rs. 97,00,000 received by either or both of the two appellants. This income represents the remittances of monies through the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., Pondicherry, and the United Commercial Bank Ltd., Pondicherry, and had accrued during the assessment year 1952-53 respectively. Since both the appellants challenged the validity of the proceedings commenced against them in their writ petitions the present appeals can be conveniently treated as companion matters and have been accordingly placed for hearing together as such. We writ first deal with the appeal preferred by Lalji.
(2.)Chhotalal, who is a resident of Bombay, filed Special Civil Application No. 374 of 1960 in the High Court at Bombay, challenging the validity of the notices issued against him by the Fourth Income- tax Officer, Ward G, and claiming appropriate writ or order restraining the said officer from taking any further proceedings under the said notices. This application was summarily dismissed by the High Court and Chhotalals request for a certificate was likewise rejected. Chhotalal then applied for and obtained special leave from this court, and that is how his appeal has come to this court.
(3.)In the notices issued by the respective Income-tax Officers against the two appellants an enquiry is proposed to be held in regard to the liability to pay tax on the alleged total income of Rs. 97,00,000 received by either or both of the two appellants. This income represents the remittances of monies through the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., Pondicherry, and the United Commercial Bank Ltd., Pondicherry, and had accrued during the assessment year 1952-53 respectively. Since both the appellants challenged the validity of the proceedings commenced against them in their writ petitions the present appeals can be conveniently treated as companion matters and have been accordingly placed for hearing together as such. We writ first deal with the appeal preferred by Lalji.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.