Pitta Ramaswamiah vs Commissioner of Income Tax

The assessee in this case put in a statement of his income amounting to Rs. 420. At a later stage when he was called upon to produce his

accounts and so forth to substantiate that statement, he did not do so and said that the officer could assess him on the materials he could find.

Thereupon the officer proceeded to estimate the income which turned out in his judgment to be much larger than what the assessee stated and it

being, in his opinion, a gross case of misstatement of income, assessed him and from that assessment the assessee appealed.

In appeal he did not succeed in persuading the Court that he had been wrongly assessed but he did persuade the appellate authority that it was a

very gross case of misstatement of his income. Thereupon he was fined Rs. 250 u/s 28 of the Act. Now he appeals against that and the chief

ground he takes is that the proceedings before the appellate Income Tax authority were coram non judice because he says he acted under S. 23

(4) and not u/s 23 (3); and that u/s 30 (1) (the proviso to that Sub-section) there was no appeal available to him in this case, for the proviso says

that no appeal shall lie in respect of an assessment made u/s 23 (4). The answer to that is that this man having put in an estimate of his income

obviously fell within Section 23 (3) and not Section 23 (4) and that the Income Tax officer''s use of the words ""to the best of his judgment,"" which

he should not have used, has led to the contention that it was a case falling within Sub-section (4) though it is not. There is no question to discuss

here and this petition must be dismissed with costs (Rs. 150).