Skip to content


Ratanchand Khimchand Motishaw and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject direct taxation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926Bom566
AppellantRatanchand Khimchand Motishaw and Co.
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax
Excerpt:
.....not implicating one accused - evidence of eye witnesses however completely fixing his criminal liability ocular evidence found credible held, absence of his name in dying declaration would be of no help to accused. - 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 en 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......1922) the assessee, within, one month of the passing of an order under section 21 against him, may require the commissioner to refer to the high court any question of law arising out 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 ease. 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, 1924, 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.....
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 assesments, 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 21 against him, may require the Commissioner to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out 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 ease. 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, 1924, 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 en 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 Commisioner to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. The petition will be discharged with costs throughout. As regards the summons counsel certified. Costs to be awarded on the Original Side scale.


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