SUBRAMONIA IYER Vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution, Mr. T. N. Subramonia Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner wants the order, Ext. P. 1 of the Income Tax Officer, New Delhi, the first respondent, to be quashed and he also prays for an order prohibiting the respondents 2 and 3 namely, the District Collector, Trivandrum and the Tahsildar, Trivandrum, from taking any proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act on the basis of the assessment stated to have been made in pursuance of Ext. P. 1.

(2.) According to the learned counsel, any assessment stated to have been made by the first respondent namely, the Officer at New Delhi in pursuance of the notice issued under Ext. P1 is absolutely null and void, because the Income Tax Officer at the relevant time, who was functioning in British India, has no jurisdiction to assess parties who are residents in the then Sovereign State of Travancore and who are also having business exclusively in Travancore.

(3.) The learned counsel, in particular, attacks the grounds given in Ext. P1 for directing the parties to furnish a return of income for the relevant year namely, assessment year 1943-44 corresponding to accounting period 1942-43. So far as this is concerned, it is also the further case of the petitioner that under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act then prevalent in the State of Travancore, the State Authorities had duly assessed the petitioner in respect of the said income and that those orders are evidenced by Ext. P2 dated 3-12-1118 and that the necessary payments have already been made to the State Authorities as evidenced by Exts. P3 and P4.