Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: INCOME-TAX OFFICER and another VS Respondent: A.M.S. SALI MARICAR
Court Name: Supreme Court of India Judge(s): K. S. Paripoornan, B. P. Jeevan Reddy Title: INCOME-TAX OFFICER and another vs A.M.S. SALI MARICAR Case No.: Civil Appeals Nos. 152 and 153 of 1979 Date of Judgment:1996-10-30 Reported As: 2001 PTD 2470 Result: Appeals allowed
Judgment ORDER These appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the judgment of the Madras High Court (see (1973) 90 ITR 116), declaring subsection (3) of section 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as void on the ground that it is violative of Article 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 v. ITO (1977) 107 ITR 825, the Karnataka High Court in K. Sampangirama Raju v. (Fifth) ITO (1988) 173 ITR 609, the Bombay High Court in CIT v. J. Pitambardas & Co. (1995) 216 ITR 172 and the Kerala High Court in Mary Issac v. IAC (1987) 163 ITR 341. We agree with the reasoning given 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 Since the provision has been repealed long ago, we do not think it necessary to say more on the subject except to say that these appeals are allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside.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. .