1942 (9) TMI 2 - HC - Income Tax

High Court dismisses petition to quash income-tax assessment order due to lack of jurisdiction

DINSHAW DARABSHAW SHROFF Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL

DINSHAW DARABSHAW SHROFF Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL - [1943] 11 ITR 172 (Bom) Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari in revenue matters.2. Legality of the assessment made by an Income-tax Officer without proper jurisdiction.3. Alleged irregularities in the assessment proceedings violating principles of natural justice.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari in revenue matters:The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer and to prevent further proceedings related to the assessment. The Court examined whether it had jurisdiction to issue such a writ under Section 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Section 226 restricts the High Court's original jurisdiction in matters concerning revenue. The Court referenced the Privy Council decision in Alcock Ashdown and Company v. Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay, which clarified that directing a revenue officer to perform a statutory duty does not involve original jurisdiction concerning revenue. However, in this case, the Court was asked to review and potentially quash an assessment order, which would constitute exercising original jurisdiction in a revenue matter. The Court concluded that it did not have the authority to issue a writ of certiorari for challenging the validity of an income-tax assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act, thus upholding the preliminary objection raised by the Crown.2. Legality of the assessment made by an Income-tax Officer without proper jurisdiction:The petitioner argued that the assessment for the year 1937-38 was invalid as it was conducted by an Income-tax Officer who lacked jurisdiction. The Court did not delve into the merits of this argument due to its decision on the jurisdictional issue. However, it noted that if the petitioner's case had been legally assigned to the officer who made the assessment, the officer would have been empowered to conduct the assessment. The Court emphasized that it was not competent to determine the validity of the assessment order through a writ of certiorari due to the constraints of Section 226 of the Government of India Act.3. Alleged irregularities in the assessment proceedings violating principles of natural justice:The petitioner contended that the assessment proceedings were grossly irregular and violated principles of natural justice. Specifically, the petitioner highlighted that his partners, who were not concerned with his assessment, were allowed to participate in the proceedings, and that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, a superior officer, actively intervened in the assessment process. The Court agreed that these actions were irregular and contrary to the confidentiality required under Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Court criticized the involvement of the superior officer, stating it was improper for him to dictate the conduct of the assessment to the Income-tax Officer. The Court noted that such irregularities could have warranted intervention if raised at an earlier stage. However, since the assessment order had already been made, the Court reiterated its lack of jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in this matter.Conclusion:The Court ultimately dismissed the petition, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order due to Section 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Court emphasized that the petitioner could pursue other remedies available under the Indian Income-tax Act or other relevant laws. The decision was limited to the jurisdictional issue and did not address the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the legality of the assessment or the alleged procedural irregularities. The petition was dismissed with costs.