TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1959 (3) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r for the years 1121, 1124, 1123 and 1122 respectively. The petitioners in O.P. Nos. 637, 638 and 640 are the legal representatives of one Mundan, and the prayers in them are in respect of the assessment for the years 1123, 1121 and 1124 respectively. Parvathi Sankaran and Mundan had been assessed to income-tax under the Cochin Income-tax Act for the relevant years. There were appeals from the assessments and on the dismissal of those appeals revision petitions were filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax. The commissioner of Income-tax dismissed the revision petitions, and there on applications for reference to this court were made, Those applications were dismissed by the commissioner on the short ground that, as the revisional ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar provision. One of the provisos to that section reads: "Provided further that an order by the Commissioner declining to interfere shall be deemed not to be an order prejudicial to the assessee." In the comments on this proviso in Kanga's book on The Law and Practice of Income-tax, 1958 edition, page 687, it is said: "The.................decision of the Privy council in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tribune Trust [1948] 16 I.T.R. 214 at 226, is a clear authority for the proposition that an order made by the Commissioner under this section can be said to be prejudicial to the assessee only when he is, as the result of it, in a different and worse position than that in which he was placed by the order under review. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....voluntary." It was contended by the assessee' counsel before us that, when the Commissioner dismisses a petition for revision of an order which itself was prejudicial to the assessee, the Commissioner's order dismissing the revision petition would also be prejudicial to the assessee and that the assessee has, therefore, the right in such cases to ask for and obtain a reference to the High Court under section 109(2) of the Cochin Income-tax Act; and in support of this contention he relied upon the decision of a Full Bench of five judges of the Madras High Court in Sreeramulu v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1939] 7 I.T.R. 263 which overruled an earlier decision of a Full Bench of three judges in Venkatachalam Chettiar v. Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Privy Council case, Kanga says in the footnotes at pages 687 of his book on The Law and Practice of Income-tax (1958 edition): "The decisions to the contrary in Ram Datta Sita Ram of Basti, In re [1947] 15 I.T.R. 61, Rama Chandra Mardaraja Deo v. Collector of Agricultural Incometax [1952] 22 I.T.R. 220. and some other cases cited therein are, it is submitted, incorrect." Statutory effect has been given to the view which the Privy Council took in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tribune Trust [1948] 16 I.T.R. 214, by the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 33A of the Indian Income-tax Act, that an order by the Commissioner declining to interfere shall not be deemed to be an order prejudicial to the assessee. Section 43 of the ....