Skip to content


Pitta Ramaswamiah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad49
AppellantPitta Ramaswamiah
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax
Excerpt:
- - 23 (4) and not under section 23 (3); and that under section 30 (1) (the proviso to that sub-section) there was no appeal available to him in this case, for the proviso says that no appeal shall lie in respect of an assessment made under section 23 (4). the answer to that is that this man having put in an estimate of his income obviously fell within section 23 (3) and not section 23 (4) and that the income-tax officer's use of the words 'to the best of his judgment,'which he should not have used, has led to the contention that it was a case falling within sub-section (4) though it is not......larger than what the assessee stated and it being, in his opinion, a gross case of misstatement of income, assessed him and from that assessment the assessee appealed.2. in appeal he did not succeed in persuading the court that he had been wrongly assessed but he did persuade the appellate authority that it was a very gross case of misstatement of his income. thereupon he was fined rs. 250 under section 28 of the act. now he appeals against that and the chief ground he takes is that the proceedings before the appellate income-tax authority were coram non judice because he says he acted under s. 23 (4) and not under section 23 (3); and that under section 30 (1) (the proviso to that sub-section) there was no appeal available to him in this case, for the proviso says that no appeal shall.....
Judgment:

1. The assessee in this case put in a statement of his income amounting to Rs. 420. At a later stage when he was called upon to produce his accounts and so forth to substantiate that statement, he did not do so and said that the officer could assess him on the materials he could find. Thereupon the officer proceeded to estimate the income which turned out in his judgment to be much larger than what the assessee stated and it being, in his opinion, a gross case of misstatement of income, assessed him and from that assessment the assessee appealed.

2. In appeal he did not succeed in persuading the Court that he had been wrongly assessed but he did persuade the appellate authority that it was a very gross case of misstatement of his income. Thereupon he was fined Rs. 250 under Section 28 of the Act. Now he appeals against that and the chief ground he takes is that the proceedings before the appellate income-tax authority were coram non judice because he says he acted under S. 23 (4) and not under Section 23 (3); and that under Section 30 (1) (the proviso to that Sub-section) there was no appeal available to him in this case, for the proviso says that no appeal shall lie in respect of an assessment made under Section 23 (4). The answer to that is that this man having put in an estimate of his income obviously fell within Section 23 (3) and not Section 23 (4) and that the Income-tax officer's use of the words 'to the best of his judgment,' which he should not have used, has led to the contention that it was a case falling within Sub-section (4) though it is not. There is no question to discuss here and this petition must be dismissed with costs (Rs. 150).


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