High CourtsDivision Bench(1988) 12 BOM CK 0037

Commissioner of Income Tax, Poona-II vs Smt. Nirmalabai K. Darekar

Bombay High Court · Decided on 19 December 1988 · Citation: (1990) 186 ITR 242

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.D. Sugla, J · S.P. Bharucha, J
CASE NUMBER
Income-tax Reference No. 342 of 1976

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 354 words

S.P. Bharucha, J.—Two questions are raised by the Revenue in this reference. They read thus :

"(1) Whether section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is confiscatory and violative of article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India as held by the Madras High Court in the case of A.M. Sali Maricar and Another Vs. Income Tax Officer and Another, ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in relying upon the said decision of the Madras High Court A.M. Sali Maricar and Another Vs. Income Tax Officer and Another, ?"

2.

Taking the second question first, it must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, having regard to this court''s judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vidarbha Vs. Godavaridevi Saraf, . The question there arose in the context of the judgment of the Madras High Court referred to in the question. It was held that the concerned provision having been declared ultra vires by a High Court, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal acting anywhere in the country was obliged to respect the law laid down by the High Court, though of a different State, so long as there was no contrary decision of any other High Court on the question. It is not disputed that at the time when the Tribunal delivered the judgment out of which this reference arises, there was no decision of any other High Court on the question of the validity of section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the Tribunal was justified in following the Madras High Court''s judgment in A.M. Sali Maricar and Another Vs. Income Tax Officer and Another, .

3.

The tribunal did not decide the vires of section 140(3) in the judgment out of which this reference arises, and it could not have done so. The question, therefore, does not arise out of its judgment. Nor is this court competent to decide the constitutional validity of a provision in the exercise of its reference jurisdiction.

4.

The first question is, accordingly, not answered.

5.

No order as to costs.