http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: M/S.  SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA(And connected appeal)

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/02/1962

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. DAS, S.K. HIDAYATULLAH, M.

CITATION:  1963 AIR  491            1962 SCR  Supl. (3) 306

ACT: Income  Tax-Order of Tribunal-Applications by  assessee  and Commissioner  of Income-tax to state a case,  dismissed  by, High Court-Appeal to Supreme Court against order of Tribunal -If  maintainable-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11  of  1922) ss.  33(4), 66(2)-Constitution of India, Art., 136.

HEADNOTE: The  Income-tax Appellate Tribunal passed an order s.  33(4) of  the Indian Income-tax Art disposing of an  appeal.   The assessee   as  well  as  the  Commissioner  of   Income-tax, Calcutta, applied to the High Court for orders requiring the Tribunal to state a case under s. 66(2), which  applications were  dismissed  by the High Court.  The  assessee  and  the Commissioner  of  Income-tax appealed to the  Supreme  Court against the order of the Tribunal, with special leave.   The main  contention before the Supreme Court was that  even  if the  appeal  against the order of the High  Court  under  s. 66(2)  fails on merits, the court has power to consider  the appeal against the order of the Tribunal.                             307 Held,  that  when the aggrieved party  approaches  the  High Court  under  a  taxing statue for an order  calling  for  a statement of the case and the High Court rejects the  appli- cation, this Court in exercise of its powers under Art.  let of  the  Constitution of India will not in- the  absence  of special or exceptional circumstances allow the order of  the High  Court  to  be  by-passed  by  entertaining  an  appeal directly against the order of the Tribunal under the  taxing Act.   The  Supreme  Court will take this view  even  if  an appeal has been filed against the order of the High Court as well. Chancdi Prasad Chhokhani v. State of Bihar, (1962) 2  S.C,R. 276, Dhakeswari Cotton Mille ltd. v. Commissioner of Income- tax,  West  Bengal, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 941  and  Sardar  Baldev Singh  v.  Commissioner  of  Income-tax,  Delhi  and  Ajmer, [1961]1 S.C.R. 482, followed.

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos. 238 and  239 of 1961. Appeals  by special leave from the judgment and order  dated March  28,  1957,  of  the  Income-tax  Appellate   Tribunal (Calcutta Bench) in I.T.A. Nos. 722 and 7341 of 1954-55. R.J. Kolah, D. H. Dwarkadas and B. P. Mahesh wari for the appellant in C.A. No. 238 of 1961 and the respondent in C.A. No. 239 of 1961. K.N. Rajgopala Sastri and D. Gupta, for the respondent in C.A. No. 238 of 1961 and respondent in C.A. No. 239 of 1961. 1962.  February 19.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH,  J.-The assessees and the Commissioner have  preferred appeals  against the order of the Tribunal passed  under  s. 33(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, after their applications of the High Court of Calcutta for orders requiring the  Tri- bunal to state a case under s. 66(2) were dismissed. Counsel  for the assessees contends that even if his  appeal against the order of the High Court under s. 66(2) fails  on the merits, this Court has 308 power  to  consider their appeal against the  order  of  the Tribunal.   This  Court in Chandi Prasad  Chhokhani  v.  The State of.  Bihar,(1) in dealing with cases where against the order  passed by a Tax Tribunal, without  appealing  against the  order  of  the  High Court refusing  to  call  for  the statement of the case set out the practice as follows:               (a)   Where the aggrieved party approaches the               High Court under a taxing Statute for an order               calling  for a statement of the case  and  the               High  -Court  rejects  the  application,  this               Court in exercise of its powers under Art. 136               will  not  ordinarily allow the order  of  the               High Court to be by-passed by entertaining  an               appeal  directly  against  the  order  of  the               Tribunal.   Such  exercise of power  would  be               particularly inadvisable where the result  may               be  conflict  of decisions of  two  Courts  of               competent  jurisdiction.   The scheme  of  the               taxing statutes is to avoid such a conflict by               making the decision of the taxing  authorities               on questions of fact final subject to  appeal,               revision or review as provided by the statutes               and the decision of the High Court subject  to               appeal  to  this Court final on  questions  of               law.               (b)   This  rule does not bar the  Court  from               granting special leave where circumstances are               exceptional,  such  as, in  Dhakeswari  Cotton               Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West               Bengal,  (2) where the Tribunal  had  violated               fundamental  rules of justice or as in  Sardar               Baldev  Singh v. Commissioner  of  Income-tax,               Delhi & Ajmer (3), where on account of special               circumstances  over which the aggrieved  party               has no control the High Court was               (1) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 276.  (2) [1955] 1. S.C.R.               94               (3) [1961] 1 S.C.R. 482.               309               unable to consider the application for calling               for a statement of the case on the merits, and               the  right of the party to approach  the  High               Court was thereby lost. Counsel for the assesses contended that in Chhokhani’s  case

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

(1) no appeal at all was filed by the assessees against  the order  of the High Court and the principle of that  case  is inapplicable  in  a  case  where  the  aggrieved  party  has appealed  against  the order of the High Court  as  well  as against the) order of the Tribunal. . It is true that in the case before us appeals have been filed against the order  of the  Tribunal  deciding  the appeal under s.  33(4)  of  the Indian Income-tax Act as well as the order of the High Court under  s. 66(2) refusing to require the Tribunal to state  a case:  but  we  fail to see  any  distinction  in  principle between  a case in which in appealing against the  order  of the  Tribunal  no appeal is filed against the order  of  the High Court and a case in which an appeal is filed aganst the order  of the Tribunal as well as against the order  of  the High Court and the latter appeal is dismissed because it has no merit. Counsel  has  not invited our attention to  any  special  or exceptional  circumstances  in  this case.   We  have  heard elaborate  arguments  on  behalf of the  assessees  and  the Commissioner on their respective contentions and for reasons already set out are of opinion that no case is made out  for calling  for a statement of the case from the Tribunal.   If we  proceed  to  hear the appeal against the  order  of  the Tribunal after upholding the order of the High Court that no question  of law arose out of the order of the Tribunal,  it would  be  a  departure  from  the  well-settled  rule  that ordinarily-we do not exercise of our jurisdiction under Art. 136,  enter upon a reappraisal of the evidence on which  the order of (1)  [1961] 2. S.C.R. 276. 310 the  Court  or Tribunal is founded.   The,  Legislature  has expressly  entrusted the power of appraisal of  evidence  to the   Taxing   authorities,  and  the  decision   of   those authorities would ordinarily be regarded as final.  This  is not to say that in a proper case this Court may not, in  the interest  of  justice when occasion demands it,  review  the evidence.   The  power of this Court under Art. 136  is  not restricted;  but it is only in very exceptional  cases  that this  Court  enters upon appraisal of  evidence  in  appeals filed with special leave and this case does not disclose any such exceptional circumstances. On this ground the appeals Nos. 238 and 239 of 1961 filed by the assessees and the Commissioner against the order of  the Tribunal  must  fail  and are  dismissed  with  costs.   One hearing fee. Appeals dismissed.