LAWS(P&H)-1956-3-14

BISHAN LAL KUTHIALA Vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER AMBALA

Decided On March 19, 1956
BISHAN LAL KUTHIALA Appellant
V/S
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AMBALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises the question whether the provisions of Sub-section (4) of section 22, Income-Tax Act are repugnant to the provisions of Article 14 of the constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner in this case is one Shri B. L. Kuthiala who is carrying on business in timber both in Hoshiarpur and in Kashmir. On 1-5-1953 the Income-Tax Officer of Simla issued a notice to him under the provisions of Section 22 (2) and Section 38 of the Income-Tax Act requiring him to make a return of his total income. In september 1953 the Commissioner made an order under Section 5 (5) and (7a) of the Income-Tax Act withdrawing the petitioner's case from the Income-Tax officer, Simla, and transferring it to the Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle at ambala. The Income-Tax Officer of the Special Circle sent a notice to the petitioner under section 22 (4) of the statute requiring him to furnish a statement of his assets and liabilities not included in the accounts. The petitioner protested against this requisition and raised a number of objections in regard to the validity of the demand and in regard to the validity of the statutory provisions under which the demand was made. The Commissioner rejected the representation and directed the Income-Tax officer, Special Circle, to proceed with the case. The petitioner is dissatisfied with the order and has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) THE first point for decision in the present case is whether the provisions of section 5 (7a) which empower, the Commissioner to set up a Special Circle are repugnant to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. The answer appears to me to be in the negative, firstly because the powers exercised by an Income-Tax Officer of a Special Circle are not different in any way from those exercised by an Income-Tax Officer of another Circle, and secondly because an assesses who is aggrieved by his order has the same rights of appeal, revision and review as are available to other assessees. In Bhagwari Das Sud v. Income-Tax Officer, Special circle, (1956) 29 I. T. R. 330 : ( (S) AIR 1956 Punj 148) (A), the learned Judges came to the conclusion, with which we find ourselves in complete agreement, that the setting up of a Special Circle is not inconsistent with the provisions of Article 14.