S.C : These appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the judgment of the Madras High Court declaring sub-s. (3) of s. 140A of the IT Act, 1961, as void on the ground that it is violative of Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

Supreme Court Of India

Income Tax Officer & Anr. vs. A.M.S. Salimaricar

Sections 140A(3), Art. 19(1)(f)

Asst. Year 1968-69

B.P. Jeevan Reddy & K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.

Civil Appeal Nos. 152 & 153 of 1979

30th October, 1996

Counsel Appeared

Dr. R.R. Mishra with Anil Srivastava & S.N. Terdol, for the Appellants : A.T.M. Sampath, for the Respondent

ORDER

BY THE COURT :

These appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the judgment of the Madras High Court declaring sub-s. (3) of s. 140A of the IT Act, 1961, as void on the ground that it is violative of Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. The said judgment has been disagreed to by almost all the High Courts in the country including the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kashiram vs. ITO (1977) 107 ITR 825 (AP) : TC 9R.667, the Karnataka High Court in K. Sampangirama Raju vs. ITO & Ors. (1988) 68 CTR (Kar) 58 : (1988) 173 ITR 609 (Kar) : TC 9R.679, the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. J. Pitambardas & Co. (1995) 124 CTR (Bom) 163 : (1995) 216 ITR 172 (Bom) : TC S9.1089 and the Kerala High Court in Mary Issac vs. IAC (1987) 163 ITR 341 (Ker) : TC 9R.716. We agree with the reasoning giving by the Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Bombay and the Kerala High Courts and disagree with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at in the judgment under appeal. Since the provision has been repealed long ago, we do not think it necessary to say more on the subject except to say that these appeals are allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside.

No costs.

[Citation : 247 ITR 808]

Malcare WordPress Security