ANANDA RAO S M Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been preferred by four divided brothers, all sons of one S. L. Mannaji Rao, challenging the orders in revision passed by the CIT, Mysore, Bangalore, under s. 264(1) of the IT Act, 1961, and s. 25(1) of the WT Act, 1957. Each of the petitioners has preferred two separate petitions questioning the orders of the Commissioner both under the IT Act and the WT Act.

(2.) THE assessment year in question in all these petitions is 1963-64. THE granting of relief to the petitioners depends on the determination of the question whether the writ petitioners, who are all assessees both under the IT Act and the WT Act, should be assessed as individuals or as members of an HUF. In these circumstances, it is sufficient to consider the facts in one set of these writ petitions, filed by S. M. Ananda Rao, namely, Writ Petn. No. 265 of 1966 and Writ Petn. No. 272 of 1966, for the disposal of this batch of cases.

(3.) THE first submission made by Mr. T. Krishna Rao, the learned Advocate General, appearing for the petitioners in all these cases, is that the order passed by the Commissioner in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under the relevant taxing statute was a quasi-judicial order and that it was amenable as such to the jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Dwarka Nath vs. ITO (1965) 57 ITR 349 : AIR 1966 SC 81 (SC). Subba Rao J. (as he then was), speaking for the Bench, observed as follows :