Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1956. December 21. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J.-These petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution raise a common question of law whether s. 5 (7A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, hereinafter called the Act, is ultra vires the Constitution as infringing the fundamental rights enshrined in Art. 14 and Art. 19 (1) (g).

The facts which led to the filing of the petitions 'nay be shortly stated.

petitions Nos. 97 & 97-A of 1956:

The petitioners are M/s. pannalal Binjrai, Oilmill owners, merchants and commission agents, carrying on business at Sahibganj in the district of Santhal Pargans, having their branch at 94 Lower Chitpur Road, Culcutta, petitioner No. 1, and R. B. Jamuna Das Chowdhury, resident of the same place and erstwhile karta of the Hindu undivided family, which carried on business in the name and style of M/S. Pannalal Binjr petetioner No. 2. Before September 28, 1954, they, being assessed by the Income-tax officer, Special Circle, Patna. On September 28, 1954, the Central Board of Revenue made an order -transferring their cases to the Income.tax Officer, Central Circle XI, Calcutta. On January 22, 1955, the Central Board of Revenue transferred the cases of petitioner No. 2 to the Income-tax Officer Central Circle VI,Delhi, and on July 12, 1955, it similarly transferred the cases of petitioner No. I to the same officer. After the dates of such transfer to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle VI, Delhi, the said officer instituted several proceedings against them and the petitioners challenged in these petitions the validity of the said orders of transfer and all the subsequent proceedings including the assessment orders as well as the order levying penalty for non-payment of the income-tax which had been assessed prior thereto, on the ground that s. 5 (7A) of the Act was ultra Vires the Constitution and all the proceedings which were entertained against the petitioners by the Income-tax Officer Central circle XI Calcutta, and by the Income-tax Officer Central Circle VI, Delhi, were without jurisdiction and void. petitions Nos. 44 and 85 of 1956 The petitioner in Petition No.44/56 is Shrii A. L. sud, the sole proprietor of 14/B. Amritlal Sud (Construction)' who orginally belonged to Hoshiarpur district in the State of Punjab but has since 1948 been residing and carrying on business in Calcutta. Prior to June 29, 1959, he had been assessed to income-tax by the Income-tax Officer, Special Survey Circle VII, Calcutta. On June 29, 1955, the Central Board of Revenue transferred his case to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala,, and the said officer continued the proceedings in the transferred case and also instituted further proceedings against the petitioner and assessed him under s. 23 (4) of the Act for the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48. Demands were made upon the petitioner for payment of the amount of income-tax thus assessed whereupon he filed this petition impeaching the validity of the order of the Central Board 'of Revenue dated June 29, 1955, and the proceedings entertained by the Income-tax Officer, Special' Circle, Ambala,on the ground that s. 5 (7A) of the Act was ultra vires the Constitution. Petition No. 85/56 was filed by M/s. Bhagwan Das Sud & Sons, Merchants, Hoshiarpur, carrying on business in rosin and turpentine there. Before October 20, 1953, they were being assessed by the Income-tax Officer,, Hoshiarpur, but on that date their case was transferred under s. 5 (7A) of the Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala. The said officer continued the said case and reopened the assessment for the years 1944-45 to 1050-51 and completed the assessment for the assessment, years 1947-48, 1950-51 and 1951-52. These petitioners also thereupon filed the petition challenging the validity of the order of transfer made by the Commissioner of Income-tax on October 20, 1953, and the proceedings entertained by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, thereafter, on the same ground -of the ultra vires character of s. 5 (7A) of the Act.

Shri A. L. Sud, the petitioner in Petition No. 44/56 is a member of the Hindu undivided family carrying on business in the name and style. of M/s bhagwan Das Sud & Sons and the cases of both these petitionrs were transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, as above, by the said respective orders. Petitions Nos. 86, 87, 88, 111, 112 and 158 of 1956:

These petitions may be compendiously described as the Amritsar group. The petitioner in Petition No. 86/56 is Sardar Gurdial Singh, son of S. Narain Singh. The petitioner in Petition No. 87/56 is Dr. Sarmukh Singh, son of S. Narain Singh. The petitioner in Petition No. 112156 is S. Ram Singh, soil of S. Narain Singh. These three are brothers and the petitioner in Petition No. 88/56 is the father, S. Narain Singh, son of S. Basdev Singh. The father and the three sons were the directors in the Hindustan Embroidery Mills (Private) Ltd., petitioner No. 1 in Petition No. 111/56, which is located at Chheharta near Amritsar. All these petitioners were, prior to the orders of transfer made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under s. 5(7A) of the Act, being assessed by the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Amritsar, but their cases were transferred on or about June 29, 1953, from the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Amritsar, to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Amritsar. These cases were - continued by the latter officer and notices under a. 34 of the Act were also issued by him against them for the assessment years 1947-48 to' 1951-52. Each one of them filed a separate petition challenging the said orders of transfer by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the proceedings entertained by the Income- tax Office r, Special Circle, Amritsar, against them -on the score of the unconstitutionality of s. 5 (7A) of the Act. The petitioner in Petition No. 158/56 is one Shri Ram Saran Das Kapur, the head and karta of the Hindu undivided family carrying on business outside Ghee Mandi Gate, Amritsar. His case also whichprior to the order complained against, was being entertained by the Income-tax Officer, 'F' Ward, Amritsar, was transferred on some date in 1954 by an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under s. 5(7A) of the Act to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Amritsar. No objection wag taken by the petitioner to this order of transfer until after the assess. ment order was passed against him but he also challenged the validity of the said order of transfer and the proceedings entertained by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Amritsar, thereafter, on the same grounds as the other petitioners.

" What is the position here? There is no hearing, no reasons are recorded: just peremptory orders transferring the case from one place to another without any warning; and the power given by the Act is to transfer from one end of India to the other; nor is that power unused. We have before us in this Court a case pending in which a transfer has been ordered from Calcutta in West Bengal to Ambala in the Punjab." (p. 283) " If the Legislature itself had done here what the Central Board of Revenue has done and had passed an Act in the bald terms of the order made here transferring the case of this petitioner, picked out from others in a like situation, from one State to another, or from one end of India to the other, without specifying any object and without giving any reason, it would, in my judgment, have been bad. I am unable to see how the position is bettered because the Central Board of Revenue has done this and not Parliament." (p. 284-5) " In my opinion, the power of transfer can only be conferred if it is hedged round with reasonable restrictions, the absence or existence of which can in the last instance be determined by the courts; and the exercise of the power must be in conformity with the rules of natural justice, that is to say, the parties affected must be heard when that is reasonably possible, and the reasons for the order must be reduced, however briefly, to writing so that men may know that (1) [1952] S. C. R. 284, 309-310.

The case of M/S. Bhagwan Das Sud & Sons, petitioners in Petition No. 85/56; had already been transferred by the Commissioner of Income-tax from the Income-tax Officer, Hoshiarpur, to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, by an order under s. 5(7A) of the Act dated October 20, 1953. The petitioners had their office at Hoshiarpur in Punjab but their activities were scattered in various parts of India some of them being in Assam, Bombay, Bareilly, Calcutta and Kanpur in respect of the contracts they undertook with the Government and other parties. They were alleged to have concealed income assessable to income-tax exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs and it was thought necessary to make proper investigation of their widespread activities resulting' in extensive evasion of income-tax. These were the circumstances under which their case was transferred to the Incometax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, as above. That officer, however, agreed to examine the accounts and evidence at Hoshiarpur itself to suit the convenience of the petitioners but the petitioners did not agree on the ground that their Advocate was to come from Delhi and therefore Ambala would suit them as well. The cases of both the petitioners thus came to be transferred from the respective Income-tax Officers who used to assess them at Calcutta and Hoshiarpur respectively to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, and all conveniences were afforded to them in the matter of the examination of their accounts and evidence. The argument of discrimination and inconvenience and harassment thus loses all its force and the orders of transfer made against them cannot be challenged as in any way discriminatory. It may be noted that in the last mentioned four petitions, viz., Petitions Nos. 97 & 97-A of 1956 and Petitions Nos. 44/56 and 85/56, the Central Board of Revenue or the Commissioner of Income-tax, as the case may be, instructed the Income-tax Officers concerned to minimise the inconvenience caused to the assessees and even proceed to their respective residences or places of business in order to examine the accounts and evidence. Inspite of the denials of the assessees in the affidavits which they filed in rejoinder, we presume that such facilities will continue to be afforded to them in the future and the inconvenience and harassment which would otherwise be caused to them will be avoided. A humane and considerate administration of the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act would go a long way in allaying the apprehensions of the assessees and if that is done in the true spirit, no assessee will be in a position to charge the Revenue with administering the provisions of the Act with " an evil eye and unequal hand ". We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that there is no substance in these petitions and they should be dismissed with costs. There will, be, however, one set of costs between respondents in each of the petitions and one set of costs in each group of these petitions, viz., (1) Petitions Nos. 97 & 97-A of 1956, (2) Petitions Nos. 44/56 and 85/56, (3) Petitions Nos. 86/56, 87/56, 88/56, 111/56, 112/56 and 158/56, (4) Petitions Nos. 211 to 215 of 1956, and (5) Petitions Nos. 225 to 229 of 1956.