Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Kajori Mal Kalyan Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930All211
AppellantEmperor
RespondentKajori Mal Kalyan Das
Excerpt:
- - we therefore declared the assessment to be bad......issued to the assessees directing them to submit 'a return on a particular date. we said that this period allowed was less than 30 days the minimum period allowed by law. we therefore declared the assessment to be bad.3. the learned government advocate now states that it was the practice the of the income-tax officer concerned to state in notices issued that in the case of the period allowed proving to be less than 30 days, the assessees would have 30 days within which to make a return.4. dr. katju on behalf of the assessees has taken a preliminary point that no review lies.5. mr. bajpai has not been able to point out to us any rule of law by which we can entertain an application for review of judgment. he read out to us a few sentences from lord halsbury's laws of england, but those.....
Judgment:

1. This is an application by the learned Government Advocate asking us to revise our judgment delivered in an income-tax case on a statement made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66, Income-tax Act of 1922.

2. The ground on which the review is sought is this. In our judgment we found the fact stated in the 'statement of the case,' that a certain notice was issued to the assessees directing them to submit 'a return on a particular date. We said that this period allowed was less than 30 days the minimum period allowed by law. We therefore declared the assessment to be bad.

3. The learned Government Advocate now states that it was the practice the of the Income-tax Officer concerned to state in notices issued that in the case of the period allowed proving to be less than 30 days, the assessees would have 30 days within which to make a return.

4. Dr. Katju on behalf of the assessees has taken a preliminary point that no review lies.

5. Mr. Bajpai has not been able to point out to us any rule of law by which we can entertain an application for review of judgment. He read out to us a few sentences from Lord Halsbury's Laws of England, but those sentences do not help him at all. There it is definitely said that where a judgment of the Court has been sealed, the judgment was not liable to be corrected except for accidental slips etc. Those very provisions are contained in the Civil Procedure Code of India.

6. Mr. Bajpai then argued that Section 98, Civil P.C., having been applied to the income-tax cases by Section 66-A of the Act, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are attracted. If that be so his case does not come under Section 114, Civil P. C, for our judgment is neither a decree nor an order.

7. We hold that no application for review is maintainable and we dismiss the application with costs.


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