TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1960 (9) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prior to the integration of the State, on April 10, 1947, the income of the firm for the account year 1945-46 (Samvat 2002) was duly assessed, and the tax was also paid. Subsequently, political changes took place, Kapurthala integrate into what was known as Pepsu, and the Rajpramukh issued two Ordinances in Samvat 2005, by which all laws in force in Kapurthala including the income-tax law ceased to be operative from August 20, 1948. The two Ordinances instead applied laws in force in the Patiala State to the area of the new State which included Kapurthala, and the Patiala Income-tax Act, 2001, came into force. Later still, the Indian Finance Act, 1950 (26 of 1950), applied the Indian Income-tax Act to the Part B States, which had emerged as a result of political changes. Section 13 of the Indian Finance Act, 1950, repealed the income-tax laws obtaining in the area of the Part B States except for the purposes of levy, assessment and collection of income-tax and super-tax in respect of the period defined therein. On March 12, 1955, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, issued a notice purporting to be under section 34 of the Patiala Income-tax Act of Samvat 2001 to the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns almost similar to sections 5(5) and 5(7A) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Sub-section (5) differed in this that the Commissioner of Income-tax was required to consult the Minister-in-charge before taking action under that sub-section. The only substantial difference in the latter sub-section was that the explanation which was added to section 5(7A) of the Indian Income-tax Act as a result of the decision of this court in Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India did not find place in the Patiala Act. The Commissioner, when he transferred this case, referred not to the Patiala Income-tax Act, but to the Indian Income-tax Act, and it is contended that if the Patiala Income-tax Act was in force for purposes of reassessment, action should have been taken under that Act and not the Indian Income-tax Act. This argument, however, loses point, because the exercise of a power will be referable to a jurisdiction which confers validity upon it and not to a jurisdiction under which it will be nugatory. This principle is well-settled. See Pitamber Vajirshet v. Dhondu Navlapa. The difficulty, however, does not end there. The Commissioner, in acting under section 5(5) of the Patiala Income-tax Act, wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ath Khemka v. King Emperor and there, as pointed out by this court, the words of the provision were even more emphatic and of a prohibitory character. The essence of the rule is that where consultation has to be made during the performance of a public duty and an omission to do so occurs, the action cannot be regarded as altogether void, and the direction for consultation may be treated as directory and its neglect, as of no consequence to the result. In view of what has been said in these cases, the failure to consult the Central Board of Revenue does not destroy the effectiveness of the order passed by the Commissioner, however wrong it might be from the administrative point of view. The power which the Commissioner had, was entrusted to him, and there was only a duty to consult the Central Board of Revenue. The failure to conform to the duty did not rob the Commissioner of the power which he exercised, and the exercise of the power cannot, therefore, be questioned by the assessee on the ground of failure to consult the Central Board of Revenue, provision regarding which must be regarded as laying down administrative control and as being directory. Learned counsel, however, con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rises the Commissioner to transfer individual cases. The words " any case from one Income-tax Officer subordinate to him to another ", " such transfer may be made at any stage of the proceedings ", etc., clearly indicate this. Sub-section (7A) is, however, not applicable here, because in respect of the cognate sub-section of the Indian Income-tax Act it was ruled by this court that it could apply to a pending case only. It was to over-come this lacuna that the explanation was added by the Indian Parliament. This amendment came in 1956, and the Patiala Act did not include a similar explanation, because prior to 1956 the question had not arisen. There is one other difference between the Patiala Act and the Indian Act. Where as sub-section (7A) was introduced in the Indian Act by an amendment, the corresponding sub-section was enacted at the same time as the rest of the Patiala Act. Now, it is quite clear that a case which was not pending at the time of transfer could not be transferred under sub-section (7A) of section 5 of the Patiala Act. The same reasoning must be applied to that sub-section, as it was applied to the Indian Act. Learned counsel referred us to an affidavit by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k and nothing much turns upon the employment of the plural number, because the plural includes the singular. Indeed, a single case might well be in a class separate from others. Duplication of powers is sometimes noticeable in statutes, and does not destroy the effectiveness of the powers conferred. Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code dealing with transfers of cases and the provisions of the Letters Patent of the High Court are instances in point. If a particular action is valid under one section, it cannot be rendered invalid because the identical action can also be taken under another section, and it makes no difference if the two empowering provisions are in the same statute. In any event, sub-section (7A) would cut down sub-section (5) only to the extent the former provides, and it has been held that it was confined to pending cases only. Sub-section (5) was thus available for cases which were not pending, and the case which was the subject-matter of the Commissioner's order was not a pending case. Mr. Palkhivala contends that sub-section (5) merely enables distribution of work, and does not deal with transfers. But where a case is not pending, an order relating to it may ....