TMI Blog1960 (9) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab (1), Himachal Pradesh, Bilaspur and Simla, in respect of reassessment of the income of the firm for the account year, 1945-46. The High Court dismissed the petition, but granted a certificate under articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution, and this appeal has been filed on that certificate. The firm carried on business as forest lessees and timber merchants at Dhilwan in the former Kapurthala State. In that State, an income-tax law was in force, and prior to the integration of the State, on April 10, 1947, the income of the firm for the account year 1945-46 (Samvat 2002) was duly assessed, and the tax was also paid. Subsequently, political changes took place, Kapurthala integrate into what was known as Pepsu, and the Rajpramukh issued two Ordinances in Samvat 2005, by which all laws in force in Kapurthala including the income-tax law ceased to be operative from August 20, 1948. The two Ordinances instead applied laws in force in the Patiala State to the area of the new State which included Kapurthala, and the Patiala Income-tax Act, 2001, came into force. Later still, the Indian Finance Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Patiala, was the competent. authority. Reliance is placed in this connection upon the provisions of section 64(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, under which the locally situated Income-tax Officer would have had jurisdiction in this case. The transfer of the case by the Commissioner of Income-tax by his order dated November 4, 1953, is characterised as ultra vires and incompetent, and it is this argument alone to which we need address ourselves in this, appeal. The Patiala Income-tax Act contained provisions almost similar to sections 5(5) and 5(7A) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Sub-section (5) differed in this that the Commissioner of Income-tax was required to consult the Minister-in-charge before taking action under that sub-section. The only substantial difference in the latter sub-section was that the explanation which was added to section 5(7A) of the Indian Income-tax Act as a result of the decision of this court in Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India did not find place in the Patiala Act. The Commissioner, when he transferred this case, referred not to the Patiala Income-tax Act, but to the Indian Income-tax Act, and it is contended that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience, or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty, and at the same time would not promote the main object of the Legislature, it has been the practice to hold such provisions to be directory only, the neglect of them, though punishable, not affecting the validity of the acts done. " The principle of the Privy Council case was also applied by the Federal Court in Biswanath Khemka v. King Emperor and there, as pointed out by this court, the words of the provision were even more emphatic and of a prohibitory character. The essence of the rule is that where consultation has to be made during the performance of a public duty and an omission to do so occurs, the action cannot be regarded as altogether void, and the direction for consultation may be treated as directory and its neglect, as of no consequence to the result. In view of what has been said in these cases, the failure to consult the Central Board of Revenue does not destroy the effectiveness of the order passed by the Commissioner, however wrong it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es made hereunder to the Income-tax Officer shall be deemed to be references to the Commissioner. (7A) The Commissioner of Income-tax may transfer any case from one Income-tax Officer subordinate to him to another, and the Minister-in-charge may transfer any case from any one Income-tax Officer to another. Such transfer may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and shall not render necessary the re-issue of any notice already issued by the Income-tax Officer from whom the case is transferred. " There can be no doubt that sub-section (7A) authorises the Commissioner to transfer individual cases. The words " any case from one Income-tax Officer subordinate to him to another ", " such transfer may be made at any stage of the proceedings ", etc., clearly indicate this. Sub-section (7A) is, however, not applicable here, because in respect of the cognate sub-section of the Indian Income-tax Act it was ruled by this court that it could apply to a pending case only. It was to over-come this lacuna that the explanation was added by the Indian Parliament. This amendment came in 1956, and the Patiala Act did not include a similar explanation, because prior to 1956 the question had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -section (7A) would be unnecessary and otiose. He argues that harmonious construction thus requires that the two sub-sections must be taken to cover different situations. The last argument is hardly open after the decision of this court adverted to already. If pending cases alone were within sub-section (7A), those cases which were not pending could not be said to have been provided for, there. There is thus no overlapping at least in so far as cases not pending were concerned. An arrangement for their disposal would be a subject of distribution of work and nothing much turns upon the employment of the plural number, because the plural includes the singular. Indeed, a single case might well be in a class separate from others. Duplication of powers is sometimes noticeable in statutes, and does not destroy the effectiveness of the powers conferred. Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code dealing with transfers of cases and the provisions of the Letters Patent of the High Court are instances in point. If a particular action is valid under one section, it cannot be rendered invalid because the identical action can also be taken under another section, and it makes no difference if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
