Skip to content


In Re: Lachhman Prasad Babu Ram of Cawnpore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All385
AppellantIn Re: Lachhman Prasad Babu Ram of Cawnpore
Excerpt:
.....such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such..........in our opinion, the jurisdiction of the income-tax officer of the area in which the principal place of business is situated is not ousted the jurisdiction is concurrent. under section 64, sub-section 1, the income-tax officer of the principal place of business has the duty of assessing the whole of the income derived from the principal place of business as wall as the various branches. by sub-section 4, every income-tax officer has also jurisdiction to exercise the powers of an income-tax officer with regard to the profits arising in that area.4. it is of course understood, and ought to be understood, by the authorities that the income-tax officer of the principal place of business will not exercise his powers oppressively, so that persons willing to submit the requirements of the.....
Judgment:

Walsh, J.

1. The answers to the three points submitted to us are as follows:

On the facts stated, a reasonable opportunity was given to the assessee to produce the accounts of the Calcutta Branch, first in Calcutta, secondly in Cawnpore, where the Income-Tax Officer of Calcutta was led to believe that the books were available.

2. Secondly, on the evidence stated, the assessee was not prevented by sufficient cause from producing the books in Cawnpore.

3. Thirdly, in our opinion, the jurisdiction of the Income-Tax Officer of the area in which the principal place of business is situated is not ousted the jurisdiction is concurrent. Under Section 64, Sub-section 1, the Income-Tax Officer of the principal place of business has the duty of assessing the whole of the income derived from the principal place of business as wall as the various branches. By Sub-section 4, every Income-Tax Officer has also jurisdiction to exercise the powers of an Income-Tax Officer with regard to the profits arising in that area.

4. It is of course understood, and ought to be understood, by the authorities that the Income-Tax Officer of the principal place of business will not exercise his powers oppressively, so that persons willing to submit the requirements of the Income-Tax Officer of the particular area in which the Branch is situated, should not; be deprived of an opportunity of supplying him with all proper materials, but exceptional cases may require exceptional remedies.

5. We allow the fee of Rs. 150 payable to the Government Advocate. As Mr. L.M. Banerji will no longer be Government Advocate when the certificate will be filed, we authorise it to be filed by his, clerk.


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