Income-Tax Officer, A-Ward, Sitapur v. Murlidhar Bhagwandas, Lakhimpur Kheri

SUPREME COURT REPORTS either with cl. (1) of Art. 15 or cL (2) of Art. 29 to require 1964 the consideration of the castes of persons tto be borne in R. Chilraleklw mind for determining what are socially and educationally Stat• ofM"Jton backward classes. It is true that cl. ( 4) of Art, 15 contains a non-obstante clause with 1the result that power conferred Mudholkar by that clause can be exercised despite the provisions of cl. (1) of Art. 15 and cl. (2) of Art. 29. But that does not justify the inference that castes have any relevance in determining what are socially and educationally backward communities. As my learned brother bas rightly i;iointed out the Constitution has used in cl. ( 4) the expression "classes" and not "castes". Upon the view which I have taken on the two points I have discussed the appeals must be allowed and a direction be issued to the Selection Committee to make the selection of candidates solely on the basis of the result of P.U.C. examination. I would allow them with costs here as well as in the High Court. ORDER BY COURT In view of the judgment of the majority, the appeals fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, A-WARD, SITAPUR MURLIDHAR BHAGWANDAS, LAKHIMPUR KHERl (B. P. SINHA, C.J., K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) lncome Tax-Assessment or reassts!ment made under order or direction from higher authority must relate to the assessment o/ tlae year under revfcw:....__Mear.ing of "finding", "direction." and "any person''-Decision of lncome~tax Officer for a particular year not res judicata for subsequent year-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), s. 34(3), provi•o-M<aning and ico~ of. The respondent was a firm carrying on business in different Jines. It was .. sessed lo income-tax under s. 23 ( 4) of tho Income· lax Act, 1922 for the assessment year 1949-50 on the ground that notices issued under ~. 22(2) aud ( 4) bad not been complied with. Later on, that assessment 1964 January, 29 lHf J, T. Officer, A-Ward, Sitapur v. Murlidhar Bhagwandas, Lakhimpurkheri was cancelled. However, before tbc cancellation. ii waa found that ID interest income of Rs. 88,737 in the shape of U.P. Encumbered Estatea. Act Bonds received by the respondent from third parties had escaped assessinent as the assessce failed to disclose the same. The Income-tu Officer isseed a notice for the assessment year 1949-50 on the ground that a sum of Rs. 88,737 had escaped assessment in the said assessment year. After the caiJceJlation of the assessment made under s. 23(4), the Incom~ tax Officer, ignoring the notice i~sued by hi1n under s. 34(l)(a). includ-ed that amount in the fresh assessment made by him for the }'ear 1949-10. The respontlent 2ppcaled to the Appell::te Assistant Commissioner who ordered the deletion of the sum of Rs. 88,737 from the assessment for the year 1949-SO and directed the same to be included in th• ass ..... ment for the year ending 1948-49. 411 412