Skip to content


Lachhman Das Babu Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933All853
AppellantLachhman Das Babu Ram
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax
Excerpt:
- - the third point no doubt is somewhat strong. we however do this, that we shall not allow the applicant any costs for the present application, although it is opposed by the income-tax department and unsuccessfully......also not sound. when an assessee has to make a reference against a certain wrong decision of the income-tax department and he succeeds, there is no reason why the department should keep the sum of rs. 100 in its pocket. it is undoubtedly a part of the costs of the reference and therefore must go as such. the third point no doubt is somewhat strong. but as the court did award all the costs to the assessee, we do not see any reason to fine the assessee the sum of rs. 100 because of the delay in discovering the fact that the sum should have been included in the memorandum of costs. we however do this, that we shall not allow the applicant any costs for the present application, although it is opposed by the income-tax department and unsuccessfully.3. we direct that the memorandum of costs.....
Judgment:

Mukerji, J.

1. This is a very short matter and is concluded by a decision of this Court in Radhey Lal Balmukand : AIR1931All23 . In an income-tax matter decided on 9th July 1929, this Court awarded to the assessee his costs against the opposite party. The costs would naturally include the amount of Rs. 100 deposited as fee for a reference under Sub-section (2), Section 66, Income-tax Act, The High Court office in preparing the memorandum of costs omitted to include this sum. The applicant now asks that this sum should be included.

2. Mr. Verma has argued three points against the application. One is that this virtually asks us to review our judgment. Secondly, it is not open to the High Court to deal with the fee paid for reference, and thirdly, that the application is a belated one. On the first point we do not think that it is an application for review of judgment. When we awarded costs to the assessee we awarded all the costs without any exception, and if, as was rightly held in the case quoted above, the fee paid for making the reference be a part of the costs in the reference, it must be deemed to have been included in our order. The second point of Mr. Verma is also not sound. When an assessee has to make a reference against a certain wrong decision of the income-tax department and he succeeds, there is no reason why the department should keep the sum of Rs. 100 in its pocket. It is undoubtedly a part of the costs of the reference and therefore must go as such. The third point no doubt is somewhat strong. But as the Court did award all the costs to the assessee, we do not see any reason to fine the assessee the sum of Rs. 100 because of the delay in discovering the fact that the sum should have been included in the memorandum of costs. We however do this, that we shall not allow the applicant any costs for the present application, although it is opposed by the income-tax department and unsuccessfully.

3. We direct that the memorandum of costs prepared in this Court be amended by addition of the fee of Rs. 100 deposited by the assessee for the reference.


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