RAM KUMAR SITARAM Vs. CERTIFICATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule is directed against an order of the Certificate Officer dt. 5th Oct., 1961, in Cases Nos. 2030 IT of 1953-54 to 2034 IT of 1953-54. The Certificate Officer filed several certificates against the petitioner on the requisition of the ITO, Special Survey Circle VI, Calcutta, that certain sums of money were due to the Union of India from the petitioner on account of the income-tax and penalty for the asst. yrs. 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950- 51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. Objections have been filed by the petitioner under s. 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, against these certificates. The Certificate Officer has dismissed these objections by his order dt. 5th Oct., 1961. The petitioner asked us to revise this order.

(2.) MR . Mitra appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued, firstly, that the assessment order of the ITO dt. 29th Dec., 1952, is invalid and illegal, inasmuch as by that order the ITO assessed the income for five years and the demand notice dt. 12th Feb., 1953, following upon this assessment order is also illegal and not in compliance with r. 20 of the Indian IT Rules, 1922, inasmuch as a single demand cannot be made for tax payable for several years. Now it appears that the petitioners disclosed their income for these five years before the ITO in August, 1952, and requested him to make assessments for those assessment years. The request is referred to in para 5 of the petition the letter by which this request was made is not disclosed by the petitioners. It is to be remembered that the petitioners themselves invited this ITO to make the assessment. It is not quite clear whether the petitioners themselves asked the ITO to make one assessment for all the five years. The assessment order dt. 29th Dec., 1952, disposed of the assessment for all the five years; nevertheless, that order set out separately the assessment for the separate years. In the Tribunal below, the order dt. 29th Dec., 1952, was not challenged on the ground that this order is illegal and without jurisdiction. Even in the petition in this Court the point that this order is illegal is not specifically taken. In these circumstances the petitioners ought not to be allowed to urge in this Court for the first time that the order dt. 29th Dec., 1952, is illegal. If the assessment order dt. 29th Dec., 1952, is legal it must follow that the demand notice dt. 12th Feb., 1953, is also legal. There being one assessment of the income of all the five years, the demand following upon it must necessarily be demand for the tax payable in respect of these five years. Besides, along with the demand notice an attached form was sent to the petitioners. Copy of the attached form has not been annexed to the petition, nor has the original attached form received by the petitioners been produced before us. The materials on the record suggest that the attached form sent to the petitioners set out separately the assessment for each year as also the tax and penalty payable in respect of each year. The petitioners really have no genuine grievance on this point.

(3.) MR . Mitra argued that the new assessees referred to in this order meant assessees whose income became assessable for the first time after 9th Oct., 1950. On the other hand, Mr. Pal contended that the expression "new assessees" meant assessees who were being assessed by the IT Department for the first time after 9th Oct., 1950. We are inclined to think that Mr. Pal's contention is sound and should be accepted. But there is a more fundamental objection to the present objection. The petitioners themselves invited the ITO, Special Survey Circle VI, to make the assessment, whereas they now turn round and say that the officer had no jurisdiction to make the assessment. Such a conduct disentitles the petitioners from getting relief in this jurisdiction. The petitioners always submitted to the jurisdiction of this officer without any protest. In Pannalal Binjraj vs. Union of India (1957) 31 ITR 565 (SC), Bhagwati J. observed :