# Con1n11ssio11rr of Income-tax v. Thr1k.11r Vas 1Jhr1rxatia S. K. Vas ]. July •8

- **Citation:** [1961] 1 S.C.R. 82
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 306 of 1957
- **Bench:** S. K. Das, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/con1n11ssio11rr-of-income-tax-v-thr1k-11r-vas-1jhr1rxatia-s-k-vas-july-8-2175
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Agricultural Income-lax-Additional Collecior-PO'.vcr of Assessment-Amendi11g Act giving retrospective ejfecl to amendecl provisions-Prot-ision for re·vicw in the amendment Act-If offecls the
powers of the appellate court-The United Provinces Agricultural
Income-tax Act, 1949 (U. P. Ill of 1949)-United Provinces Land
Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. III of 1901).
The United Provinces Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1949,
authorised imposition of a tax on agricultural income within the
State, and the agricultural income-tax and 3uper-tax were
charged on the total agricultural income of the previous year
of the assessee.
For the purposes. of the Act the Collector and
the Assistant Collector were declared to be the assessing authorities within their respective revenue jurisdiction and the expression" Collector" was to have the same meaning as in the
United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901.
Under the rules
framed by the government under s. 44 of the Act an assessec
having agricultural income in the jurisdiction of more than one
assessing authority was to be assessed by the Collector of the
district in which he permanently resided. The State Government of 1,;ttar Pradesh appointed :Mr. K. C. Chaudhry under subs. l of s. r4(A) of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901,
to be the Additional Collector in District Bahraich and authorised
him to exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of a
"Collector " " in all classes of cases", Claiming to exercise the
....
'
,_;
_.
I '
' _.(
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
83
powers of a Collector under s. 14 of the United Provinces AgriI960
cultural Income-tax Act of 1949 he assessed the net agricultural
income of the assessec \vho O¥:ned landed property in two disThe State of
tricts, namely, Bahraich and Kheri in the State of Uttar PraUtt"' Pmdesh
desh, at 12,81,rro-ro-o and ordered him to pay Rs. l,36,390-2-0
& Othm
as agricultural income-tax and super-tax.
The validity of this
v.
order was challenged by the assessee in the High Court by an
Raja Syed
application under Art. 226 of the Constitution and the High
.'llfoha11unad
Court quashed the order of the Additional Collector holding that Saadat Ali Khan
he had no "extra-territorial" jurisdiction which was exercised
by the Collector as the assessing authority in cases where the
pi.·operty of the assessee was situate in several districts and as
such the proceeding taken by him for assessing· agricultural
income-tax was unauthorised. After the judgment of the High
Court was delivered the State Legislature amended the United
Provinces Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1949, by Act XIV of
1956, giving retrospective operation to the amending provisions .
. The Amendment Act enacted that the assessment proceedings
held by an Additional Collector who was invested with the
powers of a Collector under Act III of 1901 should be deemed
always to have been properly taken. The State Government
submitted before the High Court an application under s. II of
the amending Act for review of its judgment but it was dismissed. On appeal by the State Government by special leave,
Held, that the Additional Collector was competent to assess
the liability of the assessee to pay agricultural income-tax and
super-tax under the United Provinces Agricultural :Income-tax
Act, 1949·
A Court of appeal must give effect to the law as it stood
at the time of hearing of the appeal if at any stage anterior to
the hearing th.e Jaw had been amended with retrospective effect
conferring on an authority or tribunal from the order whereof
the appeal is filed, jurisdiction which it originally Jacked.
The power of the appellate court to deal with the appeal in
accordance of the amended Jaw is not affected by a 'provision for
review as contained in s. II of the Amending Act.

## Text

Con1n11ssio11rr of
Income-tax
v.
Thr1k.11r Vas
1Jhr1rxatia
S. K. Vas ].
July •8.
82
SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS
[1961]
Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set asido the
judgment and order of the High Court.
The answer
to the question is in favour of the appellant, namely,
that the sum of Rs. 32,500/- received by the asscssee
was his professional income taxable in his hands. The
appell11.nt will be entitled to his costs throughout.
Appeal allowed.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND OTHERS
!!.
}{AJA SYED MOHAMMAD SAADAT
ALI KHAN.
(S. K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Agricultural Income-lax-Additional Collecior-PO'.vcr of Assessment-Amendi11g Act giving retrospective ejfecl to amendecl provisions-Prot-ision for re·vicw in the amendment Act-If offecls the
powers of the appellate court-The United Provinces Agricultural
Income-tax Act, 1949 (U. P. Ill of 1949)-United Provinces Land
Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. III of 1901).
The United Provinces Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1949,
authorised imposition of a tax on agricultural income within the
State, and the agricultural income-tax and 3uper-tax were
charged on the total agricultural income of the previous year
of the assessee.
For the purposes. of the Act the Collector and
the Assistant Collector were declared to be the assessing authorities within their respective revenue jurisdiction and the expression" Collector" was to have the same meaning as in the
United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901.
Under the rules
framed by the government under s. 44 of the Act an assessec
having agricultural income in the jurisdiction of more than one
assessing authority was to be assessed by the Collector of the
district in which he permanently resided. The State Government of 1,;ttar Pradesh appointed :Mr. K. C. Chaudhry under subs. l of s. r4(A) of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901,
to be the Additional Collector in District Bahraich and authorised
him to exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of a
"Collector " " in all classes of cases", Claiming to exercise the
....
'
,_;
_.
I '
' _.(
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
83
powers of a Collector under s. 14 of the United Provinces AgriI960
cultural Income-tax Act of 1949 he assessed the net agricultural
income of the assessec \vho O¥:ned landed property in two disThe State of
tricts, namely, Bahraich and Kheri in the State of Uttar PraUtt"' Pmdesh
desh, at 12,81,rro-ro-o and ordered him to pay Rs. l,36,390-2-0
& Othm
as agricultural income-tax and super-tax.
The validity of this
v.
order was challenged by the assessee in the High Court by an
Raja Syed
application under Art. 226 of the Constitution and the High
.'llfoha11unad
Court quashed the order of the Additional Collector holding that Saadat Ali Khan
he had no "extra-territorial" jurisdiction which was exercised
by the Collector as the assessing authority in cases where the
pi.·operty of the assessee was situate in several districts and as
such the proceeding taken by him for assessing· agricultural
income-tax was unauthorised. After the judgment of the High
Court was delivered the State Legislature amended the United
Provinces Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1949, by Act XIV of
1956, giving retrospective operation to the amending provisions .
. The Amendment Act enacted that the assessment proceedings
held by an Additional Collector who was invested with the
powers of a Collector under Act III of 1901 should be deemed
always to have been properly taken. The State Government
submitted before the High Court an application under s. II of
the amending Act for review of its judgment but it was dismissed. On appeal by the State Government by special leave,
Held, that the Additional Collector was competent to assess
the liability of the assessee to pay agricultural income-tax and
super-tax under the United Provinces Agricultural :Income-tax
Act, 1949·
A Court of appeal must give effect to the law as it stood
at the time of hearing of the appeal if at any stage anterior to
the hearing th.e Jaw had been amended with retrospective effect
conferring on an authority or tribunal from the order whereof
the appeal is filed, jurisdiction which it originally Jacked.
The power of the appellate court to deal with the appeal in
accordance of the amended Jaw is not affected by a 'provision for
review as contained in s. II of the Amending Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 306 of 1957.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 28,
1955, of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench),
Lucknow, in Civil Miijc. Application No. 59 of 1954.
C. B. Agarwala, C. P. Lal and G. N. Diksliit, for the
appellants.
S. P. Sinha and B. R. L. Iyengar, for the respondent.
1960. July 28.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
84
S"CPREME COUHT REPORTS
[1961]
196o
SHAH J.-Raja Syed Mohammad Saadat Ali Kha.n,
who will hereinafter be referred to as " the assessee '',
1'11t State of
f T 1
"'
'
d
'
B
Utt•• J'•adt5h is the owner o
a uqa .,anpura m
istr1ct
ahra.ich
o,. Othm
and Taluqa Mohammadi in district Kheri, in the State
v.
of Uttar Pradesh. The legislature of the United ProRaja Syed
vinces enacted the United Provinces Agricultural
Mohammad
Income-tax Act, Act III of 1949, authorising imposiSaadat Ali Kha• tion of a tax on agricultural income within the State.
Shah J.
By s. 3 of the Act, the liability to pay agricultural
income-tax and super-tax at rates specified in the
schedule therein was charged on the total agricultural
income of the previous year of every person. By s. 14,
the Collector and the Assistant Collector were for the
purposes of the Act declared to be the assessing authorities within their respective revenue jurisdictions. As
originally enacted, by s. 2(4), the expression "Collector" was to have the sa.me meaning as in the United
Provinces Land ·Revenue Act, 1901.
By s. 44, the
Provincial Government was empowered to make rules
for carrying out the purposes of the Act, a.nd in particular, amongst others," to prescribe the authority by
·whom and the place a.t which asseBBment shall be ma.de
in the case of asseBBee having agricultural income in
the jurisdiction of more than one assessing authority".
By r. 18, cL l(a.), framed by the Government, in
exercise of the powers under s. 44, it was provided, in
so fa.r as it is material, that subject to sub-s. 2 of s. 14,
an a.sseBBee shall ordinarily be assessed by ...... the Collector oi the district in which he permanently resides.
The State Government of Uttar Pradesh (the
former United Provinces) by Notification dated June 8,
1953, appointed one K. C. Chaudhry under sub-s. l of
s. 14(A) of the United Provinces La.nd Revenue Act
III of 1901 to be the Additional Collector in district
Bahra.ich and authorised him to exercise all the powers
and perform a.ll the duties of a. Collector " in all classes
of ca.sea". Cla.iming to exercise the authority of the
Collector under s. 14 of Act III of 1949, the Additional
Collector by order dated February 25, 1954, asseBBCd the
aBBCssee's net agricultural income at Rs. 2,81,110-10-3
a.nd ordered him to pay Rs. 1,36,390-2-0 a.s agriculture.I inoome-ta.x a.nd super-ta.x.
·
....
...
(
'
f
\
.I
...
l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
85
The validity of this order was challenged by the
r96o
assessee by an application under Art. 226. of the
The State of
Constitution presented before the High Co'!-rt of JudiUtt"' Pradesh
cature at Allahabad. The contention of the assessee
& Othm
that the Additional Collector of Bahraich was not an
v.
authority competent by law to assess the agricultural
Raja Syed
income-tax under Act III of 1949 was upheld by the s
Moh~~'."":h
High Court. The High Court issued a writ of. certioaadat _'
0
'
rari quashing the order of the Additional Collector,
Shah 1.
because in its opinion, where property of an assessee
is situate in several districts, the Collector as the
assessing authority under Act III of 1949 exercises
"extra-territorial" jurisdiction, but as K. C. Chaudury, the Additional Collector was not invested with
that extra-territorial jurisdiction, the impugned proceeding assessing agricultural income-tax was unauthorised.
The State of Uttar Pradesh obtained from the
High Court leave to appeal to this court against the
order quashing the assessment.
On behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, it is urged
that an Additional Collector by virtue of s. 14(A) of
the United Provinces Land Revenue Act III of 1901,
is competent to exercise all such powers and perform
all such duties of a Collector in cases or classes of
oases as the State Government may direct, and the
State Government having invested Mr. Chaudhri the
Additional Collector with authority to exercise all the
powers and to perform all the duties of a Collector
" in all cla.sses of cases", that officer could exercise
the powers of the Collector under Act III of 1901,
including, what the High Court called the "extraterritorial " powers. It is unnecessary to express any
opinion on this argument, because the legislature
of the State of Uttar Pradesh, has, since the judgment
delivered by the High Court in this group of cases,
amended the United Provinces Agricultural Incometax Act (U. P. Act III of 1949) by Act XIV of 1956,
giving ret~ospective operation to the amending provisions.
By the amendment, cl. 4 of s. 2 of the original
Act has been substituted by two clauses, cl. 4 and
cl. 4-a, and cl. 4-a enacts that the expression " Collector" shall have and shall be deemed always to have
86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1961]
'960
the meaning as in the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
The siatt ,,1 and will include an Additional Collector apJJointed
u11ar J>radesh under the said Act.
Bys. IO(l)(b), all orders ma.do,
e,. Others
actions or proceedings taken, directions issued or
v.
jurisdictions exercised under or in accordance with
Ra1a Syed
the provisions of the Principal Act or of any rull'
Mohanm1ad
f
d h
d
·
h
d
f
Saadat Ali hhan rame
t ereun er prior to t. e amen mt>nt o
t.hat
Act are to be deemed always to be as good and valid
Shah J.
in law as if the amending Act had been in force at all
material dates. By B. IO, sub.s. l(a), of the amending
Act, it is provided that in r. 18 of the U. P. Agricultural Income Tax Rules, l!J49, thA expression "Collector" shall be deemed to ha.vo included an Additional
Collector: and it is enacted by sub-s. 2 of that section
that where any question arose as to the validity or
legality of any assessment made by an Additional
Collector in purported exercise of the powcrn under
s. 14 or of the rules framed under cl. ·(o) of suh-s. 2 of
s. 44 of Act III of 1949, the same shall he determined
as if the provisions of this amending Act had been in
force at all material dates.
By the amending Act,
the legislature has enacted in language which is clear
and explicit that assessment proceedings held hy an
Additional Collector who is invested with the powers
of a Collector under Act III of 1901 shall be deemed
1>lways to have been properly taken.
This court is seize<! of an appeal from the ordc1· of
the High Court quashing the assessment on the ground
that thl' Additional Collector had no extra..tNritori11l
'authority t.o assess agricultural income-tax. It is true
that Act III of l!J49 was amended after the High
Court delivered its judgment; but in dealing with this
appeal, we arc bound to consider the amended law as
it stands today (and which must be deemed to have so
stood 11t all materi1tl times) and to give effect to it,
having regard to tho clearly expressed intention of the
legislature in thu ttmendcd provisions.
Accordingly
we hold that the Additional Collector was compet.ent
to assess the liability of the assessee to pay agricultural income-tax and super-tax under the United Provinces Agricultural Income-tax Act llI of 1949.
For the a~sessee, it is contended that before the
(
1
•\
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
87
High Court an application for review of judgment was
I96o
submitted by the State Government under s. 11 of the
The Stale of
amending Act, and the High Court having rejected
Uttar Pradesh
that application and no further proceeding having been
c-, Others
initiated in this court challenging the correctness of
v.
that decision, it is not open to us to set aside the judgRaja Syed
ment under appeal. In support of this plea, it is urged
Mohamma~
h t
1,
.
f
,
f . d
.
]
l
Saadat Alt Rhan
t a an app wat10n or review o JU gment 1s t Je on y
_
remedy available to a person aggrieved by a decision
Shah 1.
of a court or authority for rectification of an order inconsistent with the provisions of the amending Act,
and if, for any reason, that application for review is
not filed or is filed and rejected, it is not open to a
court or authority exercising appellate powers against
_ that decision to adjudicate the dispute in the light of
the amending Act.
Section 11, in so far as it is material, provides :
" Where before the commencement of this Act, any
court or authority has, in any proceedings uuder the
Principal Act, set aside any assessment made by an
Additional Collector merely on the ground that the
assessin~ authority had no jurisdiction to make the
assessment, any party to the proceedings may, at any
time, within ninety days from the commencement of
the Act apply to the court or authority for a review
of the proceedings in the light of the provisions of
this Act, and the court or authority to which the
application is made, shall review the proceedings
accordingly ".
Relying on s. 11, the State of Uttar Pradesh, it is
true did submit an application for review of the judgment of the High Court and the High Court rejected
that application observing,
"That section (s. 11) applies however only to
cases in which the assessment has been set aside in
any proceedings under the Principal Act. In the cases
before us, the assessment has not been set aside in any
proceedings under the Principal Act but in exercise of
the jurisdication vested in this court under Art. 226 of
the Constitution. These three petitions are therefore
not maintainable ............ ".
We need express no opinion on the correctness of
88
SUPREM,E COURT REPORTS
[1961]
this view, because in our judgment, the contention of
The State of
the a.ssessee that for setting a.side an adverse order
Ulla• P•adesh inconsistent with the provi8ions of the amending Act
6- Othm
of 1956, a. proceeding for review under s. II isthe only
v.
remedy which is open to an aggrieved party, is with-
;·~· Sye~
out force.
A court of appeal, in an appeal properly
Saad•~ ·;~·Khan before it, must give effect to the law a.sit stands if
Shah ].
1960
July a8. ·
the law ha.a at some stage anterior to the hearing of
the appeal been a.mended retrospectivelJ;. with the
object of conferring upon the authority or tribunal of
first instance from the order whereof the appeal is
filed jurisdiction which it originally la.eked : and a.
provision for review like the one contained in s. 11 of
the a.mending Act does not affect the power of the
appellate court to deal with the appeal iu the light of
the a.mended law.
In the view expreBSed by us, this appeal must be
allowed.
As the appellant succeeds relying on a.
statute which was enacted after the date of the judgment of the High Court, we direct that there shall be
no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
DALIP SlNGH
"·
THE STATE OF PUNJAB.
(P. B. GAJENDBAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO,
M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. c. DAS GUPTA
and J. C. SHAH, JJ.)
(
\ .
I
I