PARVATHI SANKARAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are petitions to compel a reference to this court under the Cochin Income Tax Act. The petitioner in O. P. Nos. 634, 635, 636 and 639 of 1958 is one Parvathi-Sankaran and the prayers in them are in respect of the assessments on her for the years 1121, 1124,1123 and 1122 respectively. The petitioners in O. P. Nos. 637, 638 and 640 are the legal representatives of one Mundan, and the prayers in them are in respect of the assessment for the years 1123, 1121 and 1124 respectively.

(2.) Parvathi Sankaran and Mundan had been assessed to income taxunder the Cochin Income Tax Act for the relevant years. There were appeals from the assessments, and on the dismissal of those appeals, revision petitions were filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The commissioner of Income Taxdismissed the revision petitions, and thereupon applications for reference to this Court were made. Those applications were dismissed by the Commissioner on the short ground that, as the revisional orders passed under S.43 of the Cochin Income Tax Act had neither enhanced the assessments nor were otherwise prejudicial to the applicants, no reference could be made. In these original petitions the contention of assessees counsel is that although the revisional orders have not enhanced the assessments, the Commissioner should have made the reference as prayed for since the orders are prejudicial to the assessees inasmuch as the reasons given by the Commissioner for the dismissal of the revision petitions are wrong.

(3.) Revisional powers are conferred on the Commissioner of Income Taxby S.43 of the Cochin Income Tax Act. It is expressly provided in that section that an order by the Commissioner declining to interfere shall be deemed not to be an order prejudicial to the assessee; and under S.109 (2) of the Cochin Income Tax Act, when an order under S.43 is passed, the assessee has the right to ask for and obtain a reference to the High Court only in cases where the assessment has been enhanced or the Commissioners order is otherwise prejudicial to him. It is clear from the proviso to S.43 that, so long as the Commissioner has declined to interfere and has only dismissed the application for revision, his order cannot be said to be prejudicial to the assessees, however wrong may be the reasons given by him for the dismissal. S.33A of the Indian Income Tax Act, which confers on the Commissioner powers of revision, contains a similar provision. One of the provisos to that section reads: