IN RE: RADHEY LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has arisen out of an application made to this Court by three assessees asking this Court to call upon the Commissioner of Income-tax, United Provinces, to state a case, he having refused to state one when applied to for the purpose by the applicants. The Commissioner of Income-tax has now stated a case and we have to see what are the questions of law that arise for determination by this Court.

(2.) The learned Government Advocate has placed before us an unreported judgment of a Pull Bench of the Madras High Court delivered on 20 January 1930 [Since reported in S.A. Subbiah Iyer V/s. Commr. of Income-tax Ed.] as an authority for the proposition that the High Court would not consider any point of law that was not raised either be fore the appellate officer or the Commissioner himself by the assessees. We have no reason to differ from what was laid down in that case and we think it but right that only such points 6i law should be considered by the High Court as were already before the officers of the Income-tax Department.

(3.) To find out what are the real points of law that arise in this case the following facts have to be stated: One Bankey Lal had several sons. We are concerned with only two, namely, Radhey Lal and Balmukand. Radhey Lal's son is Shyam Lal. There were three persons who were assessed with income-tax in the year previous to the year in question: (1) Bal mukand, (2) Radhey Lal Shyam Lal and (3) Balmukand Sarraf. They were assessed separately to income-tax. In the year in question, that is to say, in the year 1928-29 three separate notices were issued on 1 April 1928, to the three persons aforesaid. under Section 22 (2), Income-tax Act, calling on them to make a return of their respective incomes. They submitted returns and they also produced their account books as desired by the taxing officer. The taxing officer thereupon proceeded to assess them with income-tax. He however at some stage or other made up his mind to find out whether the three proposed assessees should or should not be assessed jointly as members of a joint Hindu family. He accordingly at different dates examined Radhey Lal and Balmukand. From statements made before him the income-tax officer came to the conclusion that the three proposed assessees were really members of the same joint Hindu family. He taxed them jointly with a certain amount of tax. The first point that is urged before us is that this procedure was wrong inasmuch as the assessees were never given an opportunity to contest and disprove the allegation that they were members of a joint Hindu family and were liable to be taxed jointly.