Held (Per S. R. DAs, ACTING C.J., VIVIAN BOSE, BHAGWATI and B.P. SINHA, JJ. JAGANNADHADAS J., dissenting) that s. 5(1) of the Taxation on Income (investigation Commission) Act, 1947 (Act XXX of 1947) is ultra vires the Constitution as it is discriminatory and violative of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 14 of the Constitution by reason of two amendments which were made in s. 34 of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 (Act XI of 1922) one in 1948 by the enactment of the Income-Tax and Business Profits Tax 1248 (Amendment) Act, 1948 (Act XLVIII of 1948) and the other in 1954 by the enactment of the Indian Income-Tax (Amendment) Act, 1954 (Act XXXIII of 1954). If the provisions of s. 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act as it stood before its amendment by Act XLVIII of 1948 had been the only provisions to be considered, the Court would have reached the same conclusion as it did in A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkitachalam Potti & Anr., ([1955] 2 S.C.R. 1196), but the position was materially affected by reason of two amendments made in that section by two Acts, one in 1948 and the other in 1954. Amended s. 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act was substantially different from the old s. 34(1) which was in operation up to the 8th September 1948. The words "if in consequence of definite information which has come into his possession the lncome-tax.Officer discovers that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment in any year.............. which appear in the old section were substituted by the words "if the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee............ income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped The requisites of (i)"definite" information (ii) which had " come into" possession of the Income-tax Officer and in consequence of which (iii) he "discovers" that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax bad escaped assessment, were no longer necessary and the only thing which was required to enable the Income-tax Officer to take proceedings under S. 34(1) as amended was that he should have reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assesses income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax had escaped assessment for a particular year. Whereas before this amended s. 34(1) came to be substituted for the old s. 34(1) there was no com- parison between the provisions of s. 5(1) of Act XXX of 1947 and s. 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act as it then stood, the provisions of s. 34(1) as amended after the 8th September 1948 could stand comparison with the provisions of s. 5(1) of Act XXX of 1947 and the cases which were covered by s. 5(1) of Act XXX of 1947 could be dealt with under the procedure laid down in s. 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. After the 8th September 1948, therefore, even in the case of substantial evaders of income-tax who were a distinct class by themselves intended to be treated by the drastic and summary procedure laid down by Act XXX of 1947, some cases that were already referred by the Central Government for investigation by the Commission could be dealt with under that Act and other cases, though falling within the same class or category, could be dealt with under the procedure prescribed in the amended s. 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The persons who were thus dealt with under s. 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act had available to them the whole procedure laid down in that Act including the right to inspect documents and the right to question the findings of fact arrived at 1249 by the Income-tax Officer by the procedure of appeal and revision and ultimate scrutiny by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which was denied to those persons whose cases had been referred by the Central Government for investigation by the Commission under s.5(1) of Act XXX of 1947. Different persons, though falling under the same class or category of substantial evaders of income-tax, would, therefore, be subject to different procedures, one a summary and drastic procedure and the other a normal procedure which gave to the assessees various rights which were denied to those who were specially treated under the procedure prescribed in Act XXX of 1947. Per JAGANNADHADAS J.-The class of persons falling under S. 5(1) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 (Act XXX of 1947) is totally different from that which falls within-amended s. 34 of the Indian Income-Tax Act 1922 (Act XI of 1922) and therefore s. 5(1) of Act XXX of 1947 is not unconstitutional as offending Art. 14 of the Constitution. Suraj Mall Mohta v. A. V. Visvanatha Sasttrii and Another ([1955] 1 S.C.R. 448), Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri and Another ([1955] 1 S.C.R. 787), A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkitachalam Potti & Anr. and M. Venkitachalam Potti & Anr. v. A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar, ([1955] 2 S.C.R. 1196), Syed Qasim Bazvi v. The State of Hyderabad and Others ([1953] S.C.R. 581), Habeeb Mohamed v. The State of Hyderabad ([1953] S.C.R. 661) and Gangadhar Baijnath and others v. Income-tax Investigation Commission, etc. (A.I.R. 1955 All. 515), referred to. M.Ct. Muthiah & 2 Others VS. The Commissioner Of Income-tax, Madras & Another. - Supreme Court of India