9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (9) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion (3)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, the sum of Rs. 20,000 received by the assessee as remuneration was revenue income liable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act ?" The answer of a Bench of which one of us (i.e., Beg J.) was a member, is in Malick v. Commissioner of Income-tax. It is true that, in order to give our opinions on the particular facts of the case of the assessee, who happened to be a former Chief Justice, this court had to interpret the provisions of section 4 of the Income-tax Act. These provisions are reproduced in section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act of 1961, with slight alteration in phraseology, which was held by us to be intended only to clarify and not to alter the law. It was contended, on behalf of the department, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the act. We had also dissented from some of the observations of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. V. P. Rao and had also distinguished that case on facts. A decision of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kamal Singh Rampuria was cited on behalf of the department. In this case, after a review of a number of authorities on the question, twelve classes were given (at pages 538 to 539) of the types of cases in which certification under section 66A(2) of the Act could be said to be proper. The case before us would certainly come under several of those classes, so that, if we were to agree with the views expressed there, this would be a fit case for certification. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, appearing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stions of wide public importance, such as, "those relating to religious rites and ceremonies, to caste and family rights, or such matters as the reduction of the capital of companies as well as questions of wide public importance in which the subject-matter in dispute cannot be reduced into actual terms of money", were of a type which was not likely to arise at all under the Indian Income-tax Act. Hence, it was suggested that the test of fitness of a case for certification under section 66A(2) o f the Act is bound to be different from that under section 109(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. It was also said that a question affecting the revenues of the State would be, for that reason alone, one of public importance. We were disposed at one s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Indeed, the Privy Council had also held in Delhi Cloth Mill's case, with regard to certification under section 66A(2) of the Act, that "the High Court is justified in refusing a certificate in a case which in its view does not raise any question of such importance as would warrant a certificate under section 109(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." In India Machinery Stores' case, the Supreme Court held : " It is true that under section 66(1) and (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, only a question of law may be referred to the High Court for opinion, but the right to obtain a certificate under section 66A(2) arises only when in the proposed appeal a question of great public or private importance arises. It cannot be held that be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arise in the case of the assessee in every year. There is nothing to indicate the consequences of the assessment of this particular sum in a particular year on the assessee's private interests, or means. We are not even apprised of the amount of tax which the assessee would have to pay if this item of Rs. 20,000 was added to his income in the particular year. Moreover, such a submission does not seem to us to be even available to the department which is only concerned with the effect of a decision upon the public exchequer. The plea of considerable private importance could only be open to an assessee whose private interests are affected. The department could not raise it at all as a ground for certification when the assessee, on whose behal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion arising in other cases, we are not informed of any other case in which such a question has arisen or is pending consideration in this court or elsewhere. Therefore, it cannot be said that the question raised is one which has been shown to affect assessees in general. It seems to us that it can only affect exceptional cases of assessees. It may be that, if these very questions had been shown to arise or likely to arise frequently in assessments, they could be held to be of wide public importance. We may observe, with great respect, that the propositions stated by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Kamal Singh Rampuria's case seem to us to be too wide. The apparent width of our discretionary powers under section 66A(2) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
