RAJAN P P Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a social worker having an income of Rs. 1,500 per month as an honorarium for the services rendered to an organisation. THE petitioner is living in Mulanthuruthy which comes within the urban agglomeration of Cochin. In this original petition, he has sought for a declaration declaring that the provisions contained under the proviso to Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are illegal and unconstitutional and for a direction not to implement the conditions enumerated under the proviso to Section 139 of the Income-tax Act.

(2.) THE main contention of the petitioner is that the conditions set out in the proviso, namely, that a person in occupation of an immovable pro- perty exceeding a specified floor area by way of ownership, tenancy or otherwise within the city specified, and that the persons subscribing a telephone, have no nexus with the objective of assessment of income-tax. According to him, these conditions imposed against those persons who are owning the property and telephone and leaving others who are having much more income and property, are discriminatory. It is submitted that the geographical classification attempted by the legislation is totally unrelated to the object sought to be achieved. THE condition imposed to file a return is onerous and uncalled for.