SURAJMULL GHATTANI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner, Suraj-mull Ghattani, has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of calling up and quashing an order of the Income-tax Officer, Purnea, dated the 2nd November, 1955, refusing to permit the petitioner to practise before the Income-tax authorities under Section 61 of the Indian Income-tax Act.

(2.) The order of the Income-tax Officer of Purnea is to the following effect :--

(3.) It is argued on behalf of the Petitioner that he had attended before the Income-tax authorities on behalf of assessees before the 1st of April, 1938, in some cases and, therefore, the petitioner was an Income-tax practitioner within the meaning of Section 61, Sub-section (2), Clause (iv), of the Indian Income-tax Act and was entitled to practise under the Section 61 (1) before any income-tax authority, and the order passed by the Income-tax Officer of Purnea, on the 2nd of November, 1955, is illegal and ultra vires and without jurisdiction In support of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner copies of two letters have been filed--one dated the 7th of September, 1955, from Chan-chal Prasad saying that he had engaged the petitioner in the year 1937 to represent him before the Income-tax Officer for examination of accounts and the other dated the 6th September, 1955, from one Abde Ali, saying that the petitioner had been engaged by him for the purpose of his case before the Income-tax Department in the year 1937-33 on the 5th of October, 1937.