Skip to content


Secretary of State Vs. Basant Rai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1932All317; 140Ind.Cas.27
AppellantSecretary of State
RespondentBasant Rai and ors.
Excerpt:
.....was made is no longer holding the position and it is not clearly found under what circumstances the question of re-assessment was not taken up, 3. it is the duty of the income-tax department to take up the question of reassessment, after a reference by the commissioner of income-tax has been answered by the high court and to see in the presence of the assessed whether, in the light of the judgment of the high court, any of the figures arrived atare liable to alteration or not......of the income-tax department to take up the question of reassessment, after a reference by the commissioner of income-tax has been answered by the high court and to see in the presence of the assessed whether, in the light of the judgment of the high court, any of the figures arrived atare liable to alteration or not. it is not enough to say that material alteration in the figure of assessment is not expected, and therefore re-assessment is not necessary.4. the learned commissioner has left the matter in the hands of the high court and has asked for directions. all the directions that the high court need give are those that the re assessment has to be taken up, after notice to the assessee, and the figures should be reconsidered in the light of the decision of the high court. it may.....
Judgment:

Mukerji, J.

1. Today the learned Government Advocate has appeared on behalf of the Crown, and states that

the Income-tax Commissioner in whose time the order of this Court was passed evidently considered that the High Court's judgment did not have the effect of rendering assessment liable to alteration. It was therefore not reconsidered. In a technical sense this view was not entirely correct but the result of such recalculation would probably have left the tax unaffected and the practical effect of the assessment would have been nil. As to the future the matter lies with the High Court. If the High Court holds that its judgment rendered assessment liable to alteration and will clearly indicate in what respect alteration is needed the directions will of course be followed and assessable income recalculated.

2. The statement of the learned Government Advocate shows that the Commissioner in whose time the judgment was made is no longer holding the position and it is not clearly found under what circumstances the question of re-assessment was not taken up,

3. It is the duty of the Income-tax Department to take up the question of reassessment, after a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax has been answered by the High Court and to see in the presence of the assessed whether, in the light of the judgment of the High Court, any of the figures arrived atare liable to alteration or not. It is not enough to say that material alteration in the figure of assessment is not expected, and therefore re-assessment is not necessary.

4. The learned Commissioner has left the matter in the hands of the High Court and has asked for directions. All the directions that the High Court need give are those that the re assessment has to be taken up, after notice to the assessee, and the figures should be reconsidered in the light of the decision of the High Court. It may be that as the result of the judgment of the High Court the actual assessment will not be affected or will be affected adversely to the assessee himself. Whatever be the result, the matter has to be reconsidered, and we expect that in this case also it will be reconsidered.

5. As the assessee has got all ha wanted, his application does not call for any further orders except as to costs. As the assessee had to come up to the High Court, and his complaint was justified, we allow him costs of the hearing of this application assessing the amount of counsel's fee at Rs. 100 to be taxed in accordance with the rules of the High Court. The Government Advocate has appeared twice and we assess his fees at Rs. 100 for each occasion, namely, Rs. 200 in all subject to his certifying payment of the fees within the time allowed by the rules.


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