D N BHATTACHARYA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : This rule has been obtained by the petitioner under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing a certificate proceeding pending against him before the Certificate Officer, 24-Par-ganas, for the realisation of unpaid income-tax on the ground that the proceeding is void ab initio.

(2.) THE facts which are not disputed may be briefly stated as follows : THE petitioner was assessed on an income of Rs. 27,162 for the year 1946-1947. Subsequently, this assessment was re-opened under s. 34 of the Indian IT Act, and he was assessed on an income of Rs. 7,46,476, and his tax liability was determined at Rs. 6,53,638, and odd. THE petitioner filed an appeal against this assessment which is said to be still pending. On the 25th May, 1951, the ITO acting under s. 46(2) of the Indian IT Act forwarded a certificate to the Collector of 24-Parganas specifying the amount due from the petitioner and, on the basis of the certificate thus forwarded, a proceeding under the Public Demands Recovery Act was started against the petitioner by the Certificate Officer, 24- Parganas. THE notice under s. 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act was served on the petitioner on the 11th July, 1951, and on the 14th Aug., 1951, the petitioner filed an objection challenging the validity of the certificate. THE petitioner's objection is that the certificate under s. 46(2) of the Indian IT Act should have been forwarded to the Collector of Calcutta and not to the Collector of 24-Parganas and as in the present case the certificate was forwarded to the Collector of 24- Parganas, the proceedings started by him is without jurisdiction. THE objection of the petitioner has been overruled by the authorities below and against those orders the petitioner has obtained the present rule.

(3.) IN our opinion, therefore, the Collector of 24-Parganas, as such, had jurisdiction to receive the certificate in his capacity as the Collector of Calcutta. The view which we have taken of the effect of this notification receives some support from the decision of this Court in the case of Hari Charan Singh vs. Chandra Kumar Dey (1907) ILR 34 Cal 787. At page 806 Woodroffe, J., makes the following observation : "Secondly it is said that the Certificate Officer of 24-Parganas had no jurisdiction as regards immovable property in Calcutta. This however is not so, as the Collector of 24-Parganas is ex officio Collector of Calcutta." This decision was affirmed on appeal by Maclean, C. J., sitting with Harrington and Fletcher, JJ., in Hari Charan Singh vs. Chandra Kumar Dey (1908) ILR 35 Cal 286. So, both upon a plain reading of the notification, as well as upon authorities, we hold that the Collector of 24-Parganas had jurisdiction to receive the certificate which was forwarded to him in the present case by the ITO under s. 46(2) of the INdian IT Act.