V ANNAMALAI Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitions are directed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax under section 34 of the Act. By that order, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as that order did not have the consequence of enhancing any liability of the petitioner or imposing any new liability on him or subject him to any restrictions which did not exist earlier.

(2.) THIS court, as early as in the year 1965, in the case of N.N. Seshadri-naihan v. State of Madras [1966] 60 ITR 482 speaking through a Full Bench has held that an application for revision will not lie to this court against an order made by the Commissioner under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, if that order is not one which can be regarded as prejudicial to the assessee. While so holding, the court took note of the second proviso to Section 34 of the Act which reads as under :

(3.) THE other argument that was sought to be advanced for the petitioner was that the Full Bench was in error in not following the decision of the Special Bench of five judges rendered in the case of Voora Sreeramulu Chetty v. CIT [1939] 7 ITR 263 (Mad). THE case of Voora Sreeramulu Chetty [1939] 7 ITR 263 (Mad) [FB] was one which arose under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. THE Full Bench was concerned with the scope of Section 34 of the Act and has laid down the law with reference to that section. THE Full Bench relied upon the decision of the Privy Council in the case of CIT v. Tribune Trust, Lahore [1948] 16 ITR 214 which held that a reference does not lie under the Income-tax Act from an order under Section 33 of the Act, unless that order is prejudicial to the assessee in the sense that he is in a worse position after the order was mades THE decision of the Special Bench of the court in the case of Voora Sreeramulu Chetty [1939] 7 ITR 263 (Mad) [FB] is at variance with the decision of the Privy Council rendered later in the year 1948. THE Full Bench has, therefore, held that the decision of this court in the case of Voora Sreeramulu Chetty [1939] 7 ITR 263 (Mad) [FB] was no longer good law.