Case Details

Citation(s)
1960 SLG 9 1960 SLD 9 1960 PTD 94
Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeals Nos. 241 to 244 of 1956, decision dated: 1st May, 1959
BHAGWATI, SYED, JAFER IMAM, KAPUR AND HIDAYATULLAH, JJ
N. C. Chatterjee (Sukumar Ghose with him) for Appellant. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India (K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta with him) for
Respondent

CHIMMONLALL RAMESHWARLALL

VS

COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL) CALCUTTA

Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: 33(4),66(1)(2)

Law: Constitution of India

Section: 136

Income tax Act (XI of 1922)---Ss. 33 (4), 66 (1) (2) Consti¬tution of India, Art. 136-Refusal of Appellate Tribunal to state case Refusal of High Court to direct Tribunal to state case-¬Appeal to Supreme Court only from order of Tribunal refusing to state case Supreme Court Whether will decide on merits. Where the Appellate Tribunal rejected the application of the assessee under section 66 (1) of the Income tax Act to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of its order under section 33 (4) of the Act, and the High Court in turn refused under section 66 (2) to direct the Appellate Tribunal to state a case, and without appealing from the order of the Appellate Tribunal under section 33 (4) and the order of the High Court under section 66 (2), the assessee appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court only against the order of the Appellate Tribunal refusing to state a case under section 66 (1); Held, by the Supreme Court, that it would not by pass the normal procedure in such a case and would not enter upon an adjudication of the appeal on its merits. It was doubtful whether an appeal would be entertained against an order of the Appellate Tribunal under section 66 (1) of the Income tax Act even under the jurisdiction of the Court avail¬able under Article 136 of the Constitution. JUDGMENT BHAGWATI, J. These four appeals with special leave granted by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are directed against the orders, dated the 8th June 1951, of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay A, in Reference Applications Nos. 737, 738, 739 and 740 of 1949 50 and arise under the following circumstances; The appellants were at all material times a Hindu undivided family of which Rameshwarlal Ganeriwalla is the karla. As a result of certain transactions which need not be detailed here Rameshwarlal Ganeriwalla became the creditor of the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad in a large sum of over Rs. 6,38,000 by about 1928 29. Some time in 1933, an Act named the Murshidabad Estate Administration Act, 1933 (XXIII of 1933), was enacted under the provisions whereof the Estate of the Nawab Bahadur was taken over by the authorized manager. The debt due by…
🔒
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