Skip to content


Ratanchand Khimchand Motishaw Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Application No. 434 of 1924
Judge
Reported in(1926)28BOMLR1096
AppellantRatanchand Khimchand Motishaw
RespondentThe Commissioner of Income Tax
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
.....has made an order in review under section 33, the assessee, if dissatisfied with the order, cannot require the commissioner to state a case. such a power of requisition on the commissioner to state a case is not provided for by the legislature. - - further correspondence ensued, and, on july 30, the assessee, requested the commissioner to make a reference to the high court under section 66. the commissioner agreed to hear the assessee, and, on august 16, he passed another order under section 33, in effect, taxing the assessee on an income of rs, 20,000, the assessee was not satisfied, and again asked the commissioner to state a case for the opinion of the high court on the second question on which he asked for a reference. the commissioner refused, so that the assessee made an..........1922) the assessee, within one month of the passing of an order under section 31 against him, may require the commissioner to refer to the high court any question of law arising out of such order, and the commissioner shall, within one month of the receipt of such application, draw up a statement of the case and refer it with his own opinion thereon to the high court, the assessee, therefore, had time till june 13, 1924, to require the commissioner to state a case. no such requisition was made on the commissioner, but it appears that an application was made to the commissioner to revise the order of the assistant commissioner.2. on july 3, 3 924, the commissioner passed an order that, on perusal of the record and proceedings, he declined to interfere. further correspondence ensued, and,.....
Judgment:

Macleod, C.J.

1. An order was made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in this case on May 13, 1924, in the matter of the appeals against income tax and super-tax assessments, levied against R.K. Motishaw and Co., by the Senior Income Tax Officer for the year 1923-24. Under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) the assessee, within one month of the passing of an order under Section 31 against him, may require the Commissioner to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order, and the Commissioner shall, within one month of the receipt of such application, draw up a statement of the case and refer it with his own opinion thereon to the High Court, The assessee, therefore, had time till June 13, 1924, to require the Commissioner to state a case. No such requisition was made on the Commissioner, but it appears that an application was made to the Commissioner to revise the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

2. On July 3, 3 924, the Commissioner passed an order that, on perusal of the record and proceedings, he declined to interfere. Further correspondence ensued, and, on July 30, the assessee, requested the Commissioner to make a reference to the High Court under Section 66. The Commissioner agreed to hear the assessee, and, on August 16, he passed another order under Section 33, in effect, taxing the assessee on an income of Rs, 20,000, The assessee was not satisfied, and again asked the Commissioner to state a case for the opinion of the High Court on the second question on which he asked for a reference. The Commissioner refused, so that the assessee made an application to this Court under Section 66 (3). But the period for limitation for a requisition on the Commissioner to state a case being clearly one month under Sub-section (2), we have no power to extend the time. A suggestion that, when the Commissioner has made an order in review under Section 33, the assessee if dissatisfied with the order, may require the Commissioner to state a case, cannot be sustained. Such a power of requisition on the Commissioner to state a case is not provided for by the legislature, and consequently we cannot entertain it. In fact, the assessee is out of time, and he is no longer entitled to come to this Court and ask for an order requiring the Commissioner to state a case for the opinion of the High Court.

3. The petition will be discharged with costs throughout. As regards the summons counsel certified. Costa to be awarded on the Original Side scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //