Case Details

Citation(s)
1952 SLG 289 1952 SLD 289 (1952) 22 ITR 150
Bombay High Court

CHAGLA, C.J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Jamnadas Prabhudas

v.

Commissioner of Income Tax *

Law:

Section:

Section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 66A(2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922] read with Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India - Supreme Court - Appeals to - Whether neither article 133(1)(a) nor (b) could apply to a given by High Court in a reference - Held, yes - Whether expression " , decree or final order" used in Article 133(1) means a final declaration or determination of rights of parties and it also means a decision given on merits - Held, yes - Whether when a petition is made to High Court arising out of a reference decided by High Court for leave to appeal to Supreme Court, apart from Article 132, High Court has to consider whether leave should be granted or not only under section 66A(2) and not under Article 133 - Held, yes FACTS The petitioner-assessee made an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The High Court held that under section 66A(2) of the 1922 Act it was not a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. Thereafter, it was submitted by the assessee that he had a right of appeal under article 133(1)(a) and (b ) of the Constitution inasmuch as the amount or value of the subject-matter was not less than Rs. 20,000 or, in the alternative, that the , decree or final order involved directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of not less than Rs. 20,000. HELD It is clear that neither Article 133(1)(a ) nor (b) can apply to a given by this Court on a reference made under the Act. It is clear that as far as Article 133(1)(a) is concerned, it requires that the amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the Court of first instance and still in dispute on appeal was and is not less than Rs. 20,000. Therefore, that sub-clause in terms contemplates that there has been an appeal from the Court of first instance and the amount or value of the subject-matter has to be determined both from the point of view of the Court of first instance and from the point of view of the dispute on appeal. The jurisdiction that this Court exercises under the Act is not an appellate jurisdiction. It is an advisory or consultative jurisdiction and therefore in terms Article 133(1)(a ) would…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492