ivil Appeal No 479 of 1986
578 From the Judgment and Order dated 183
1985 of the Assam High Court in Civil Rule No 139 of 1979
AK Ganguli A Mariarputham AD Sikri and Dilip Tandon for the Appellant
Kapil Sibal Additional Solicitor General Rajiv Dhawan Gopal Singh CVS Rao Adv
NP and RB Misra for the appearing respondents
Hardev Singh and section Ravindra Bhat for the intervenor
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
This appeal by special leave calls in question the judgment of the Guwahati High Court dated March 18 1985 dismissing the appellant s writ petition
The appellant is a resident of Tripura State
In his application in a representative capacity before the High court he main tained that he belonged to the Laskar community which had always been treated in the erstwhile State of Tripura as a Scheduled Tribe and on that basis in the State records was included in the Deshi Tripura community long before integra tion of the Ruler s State of Tripura with the Union of India
Members of the Laskar community freely enjoyed all the benefits available to members of the Schedule Tribes until in 1976 the State Government decided to treat members of that community as not belonging to the Scheduled Tribes and issued instructions to the State authorities to imple ment the Government decision
That led to the filing of the petition before the High Court
In the writ petition appel lant prayed for appropriate directions to continue to treat the appellant and members of his community as belonging to the Scheduled Tribes and for a direction to the State Gov ernment to extend all the benefits admissible to members of the Scheduled Tribes to members of the Laskar community
Before the High Court the respondents disputed the claim and maintained that the Laskar community was never included in the Scheduled Tribes Order and as such there was no question of exclusion from the list
A historical study of the claim would show that in the past TripuraTripuriTippera which have been included in the Presidential Notification never included the Laskar community
Tripuras were
a TibetoDurman race akin to the Shan tribe and Tipperas were divided into four groups namely i Puran or original Tipperas ii Jamatias iii Noatias or Nutan Tripuras and iv Riangs
Respondents relied upon Government records and official publications in support of the aforesaid stand
579 Before the High Court two circulars of the erstwhile State of Tripura one being of December 1930 and the other of February 1941 as also the census report of the ex State of Tripura were produced in support of the claim advanced by the appellant
Several authorities of this Court were relied upon for finding out the scope of enquiry in a claim of this type and ultimately by the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the writ petition but on the basis of a statement made by the Advocate General appearing for the State it recorded We keep on record the statement made by the learned Advo cate General Tripura on instruction that as a result of the impugned Memorandum No 18887 19077TW6 4L D dated 284
1979 the certificates already issued would be treated as infructuous prospectively and not retrospectively and those who have already enjoyed the benefits by virtue of such Scheduled Tribe certificates they shall not be deprived of the benefits they have already enjoyed and the Memorandum shall be effective from its date prospectively insofar as the future benefits are concerned
 This appeal had come up for final hearing earlier and by a brief judgment reported in  a two Judge Bench recorded the following order The record before us shows that the people of the Laskar community have been treated as members of the Scheduled Tribes and there have been some letters from the Government of India to the State Government in support of that posi tion it is however a fact that there has been no clear inclusion of the community in an appropriate Presidential Order
The appellant has maintained that even in the absence of such a clear specification in a Presidential Order as a sub group under one of the notified categories the appel lant s community has been enjoying the privileges
We have been told by the learned counsel for the Union of India that the representation made by the appellant and members of his community for inclusion in the Presidential Order under Article 342 of the Constitution is being looked into and is being placed before the Parliamentary Committee in accord ance with the prescribed procedure for a review of the position
He has assured us that the Government of India will take steps to finalise the matter at an 580 early date and may in compliance with the procedure as prescribed take a final decision
In case the community is not included in the Presidential Order it would be open to the appellant to take such action as may be available in law
 The appellant waited for some time and approached the Government of India for quick action but when nothing hap pened an application for directions was made in this Court
Several adjournments were taken but Government could not take any decision
Ultimately by consent of parties the order disposing of the appeal was recalled and the appeal was directed to be set down for re hearing
That is how the appeal is now before us
Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution deal with Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively and contain almost identical provision
We may extract Article 342 dealing with Scheduled Tribes 3421 The President may with respect to any State or Union Territory and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof by public notification specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory as the case may be
2 parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause 1 any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification
 Article 36625 defines Scheduled Tribes  to mean such tribes or tribal communities or parts or groups within such tribal communities as are deemed under article 342 to be Sched uled Tribes for the purposes of this Constitution
The Constitution Scheduled Tribes Union Territories Order 1950 relating to Tripura included 19 tribes within the notification
Items 15 16 17 and 18 are relevant for our purpose and they were 15
Tripura or Tripuri Tippera
581 16
Jamatia 17
Noatia 18
Riang Following the Reorganisation Act 37 of 1956 the Ministry of Home Affairs on October 29 1956 notified the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
In respect of the then Union Territory of Tripura the same communities were relisted
Then came the NorthEastern Area Reorganisa tion Act 81 of 1971 which in the Fourth Schedule con tained amendment to the Constitution Scheduled Tribes Order 1950
Items 15 to 18 in the Scheduled contained the same descriptions
The Scheduled Castes  Scheduled Tribes Orders Amendment Act 108 of 1976 in relation to Tripura in the Second Scheduled carried the same in Entries 7 14 16 and 18
It is therefore clear that in Tripura the scheduled tribes within the meaning of the definition given in article 366 of the Constitution have been the following Jamatia Noatia Riang and TripuraTripuriTippera  apart from 15 other tribes as specified
It is not necessary to refer to the 15 others inasmuch as it is the case of the appellant that Laskars are a part of the tribe named as Tripura Tripuri or Tippera covered by Entry 18
Before adverting to the evidence upon which the appel lant relies in support of his stand it is necessary that the scope of enquiry to be conducted in this regard by the Court may be determined
There are precedents of this Court which have to be first referred to
A Constitution Bench in the case of B Basavalingappa vs D Munichinnappa  examined the provisions of article 341 which contained similar provisions for the scheduled castes with reference to an election dispute
Wanchoo J spoke for the Constitu tion Bench thus Clause 1 provides that the President may with respect to any State after consultation with the Governor thereof by public notification specify the castes races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes races or tribes which shall for the purposes of the Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State
The object of this provision obviously is to avoid all disputes as to whether a particular caste is a Scheduled Caste or not and only those castes can be Scheduled Castes which are notified in the Order made by the President under article 341 after consultation with the Governor where it relates to 582 such castes in a State
Clause 2 then provides that Par liament may by law include in or exclude from the list of scheduled castes specified in a notification issued under cl
1 any caste race or tribe or part of or group within any caste race or tribe
The power was thus given to Par liament to modify the notification made by the President under cl
Further cl
2 goes on to provide that a notification issued under cl
1 shall not be varied by any subsequent notification thus making the notification by the President final for all times except for modification by law as provided by cl
Clearly therefore article 341 provides for a notification and for its finality except when altered by Parliament by law  
Therefore in view of this stringent provision of the Constitution with respect to a notification issued under cl
1 it is not open to any one to include any caste as coming within the notification on the basis of evidence Oral or documentary if the caste in question does not find specific mention in the terms of the notification  
It may be accepted that it is not open to make any modification in the Order by producing evidence to show for example that though caste A alone is mentioned in the Order caste B is also a part of caste A and there fore must be deemed to be included in caste A
It may also be accepted that wherever one caste has another name it has been mentioned in brackets after it in Order
Therefore generally speaking it would not be open to any person to lead evidence to establish that caste B is part of caste A notified in the Order
 The factual dispute raised in the case before the Con stitution Bench was whether Voddar caste was included in Bhovi caste which was one of the notified castes
The Con stitution Bench dealt with the evidence and ultimately said In the circumstances therefore we agree with the High Court that respondent No 1 though Voddar by caste belongs to the scheduled caste of Bhovi mentioned in the Order
We may again repeat that we have referred to the evidence in this case only because there was undoubtedly no caste known as Bhovi in the Mysore State as it was before 1956 and we had to find out therefore which caste was meant by the word Bhovi  as used in the Order
But for this fact it would not have been open to any party to 583 give evidence to the effect that caste A mentioned in the Order includes or was the same as caste B where caste A does exist in the area to which the Order applies
 A similar dispute again came before a Constitution Bench in Bhaiyalal vs Harikishan Singh  Ors  with reference to a scheduled tribe in an election dispute
Gajendragadkar CJ speaking for the Court said It is obvious that in specifying castes races or tribes the President has been expressly authorised to limit the notification to parts of or groups within the castes races or tribes and that must mean that after examining the educational and social backwardness of a caste race or tribe the President may well come to the conclusion that not the whole caste race or tribe but parts of or groups within them should be specified
Similarly the President can specify castes races or tribes or parts thereof in relation not only to the entire State but in relation to parts of the State where he is satisfied that the examina tion of the social and educational backwardness of the race caste or tribe justifies such specification
In fact it is well known that before a notification is issued under article 3411 an elaborate enquiry is made and it is as a result of this enquiry that social justice is sought to be done to the castes races or tribes as may appear to be necessary and in doing justice it would obviously be expedient not only to specify parts or groups of castes races or tribes but to make the said specification by reference to different areas in the State
 What we have extracted above clearly supports the view of the other Constitution Bench namely the list is intend ed to be final
We may now refer to a two Judge Bench decision in the case of Parsram  Anr
vs Shivchand  Ors
  Here again the Scheduled Castes Order was in issue in an election dispute and the question for consideration was whether mochi was included in the notified caste of chamar
The Court referred to both the Constitution Bench judgments and indicated These judgments are binding on us and we do not therefore think that it would be of any use to look into the gazeteers and the glossaries on the Punjab castes and tribes 584 to which reference was made at the Bar to find out whether Mochi and Chamar in some parts of the State at least meant the same caste although their might be some difference in the professions followed by their members the main differ ence being that Chamars skin dead animals which Mochis do not
However that may be the question not being open to agitation by evidence and being one the determination of which lies within the exclusive power of the President it is not for us to examine it and come to a conclusion that if a person was in fact a Mochi he could still claim to belong to the scheduled caste of Chamars and be allowed to contest an election on that basis
 In Kishorilal Hans vs Raja Ram Singh  Ors  a two Judge Bench was called upon to decide whether jatav caste not mentioned in the scheduled castes of Datia district of Madhya Pradesh in the Order was included in chamar caste
The Court indicated If the matter were res integra we would have felt a good deal of difficulty in reconciling with the constitutional provisions the scheme followed in the state and the Orders concerned by which some caste has been includes in some districts of the same State and excluded in the other dis tricts
This Court however has in Bhaiyalal vs Harikishan Singh  Ors supra made observations repelling the conten tion that under article 341 of the Constitution the President was not authorised to limit the notification to parts of a State  
In Bhaiyalal s case the appellant s election had been challenged on the ground that he belonged to the Dohar caste which was not recognised as a scheduled caste for the district in question and so his declaration that he belonged to the Chamar caste which was a Scheduled Caste was improperly and illegally accepted by the Returning Officer
It was held that the plea that though the appellant was not a Chamar as such he could claim the same status by reason of the fact that he belonged to Dohar caste which is a sub caste of the Chamar caste could not be accepted
An enquiry of that kind would not be permissible having regard to the provisions contained in article 341 of the Constitution
 We may now refer to two separate judgments of this Court in the case Dina vs Narayan Singh and Bhaiya Ram Munda vs 585 Anirudh Patar  Ors  Both were rendered by a common Bench of Shah as he then was and Bhargava JJ
In the first case the question for consideration was inter pretation of Entry 12 in the Scheduled Tribes Order
The entry read Gond including Mana 
The Court interpreted that Mana community was a substitute of Gond and on a proper construction of the entry Manas not being Gonds were not intended to be included
The decision in that case is not relevant for our purpose
In Bhaiya Ram s case the tribe specified in the Sched uled Tribes Order was Munda
The respondent was a Patar but he maintained that it was included in the notified tribe
The Bench was of the view that evidence was admissible for the purpose of showing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to mean though evidence could not be accepted for modifying the order by including a new tribe
Since the respondents  case was that Patars were Mundas evidence could be given to show that the entry Munda  included Patar 
These authorities clearly indicate therefore that the entries in the Presidential Order have to be taken as final and the scope of enquiry and admissibility of evidence is confined within the limitations indicated
It is however not open to the Court to make any addition or subtraction from the Presidential Order
The evidence in this case on which reliance has been placed in support of the claim that Laskars are included in the tribe described as TripuraTripuriTippera  mainly consists of two circulars of the erstwhile State of Tripura
Circular No 9 is of December 1930
There is a narration therein to the following effect In this State Tripura Sampradaya means the following five communities  1
Puratan Tripura 2
Deshi Tripura related to Laskar Class 3
Noatia 4
Jamatia 5
Riang 586 In Circular No 10 which is of the year 1941 it has been said In this State Tripura Kshatriya denotes the following classes 1
Puratan Tripura 2
Deshi Tripura related to Laskar Class 3
Noatia 4
Jamatia 5
Riang The latter document related to census operation in the State
From these two documents it is clear that Deshi Tripura covered the Laskar class while there was another class called TripuraTripuri Tippera  which did not relate to Laskar class
The Presidential Order has admitted the three tribes of Noatia Jamatia and Riang in terms but while dealing with the two classes of Puratan Tripura and Deshi Tripura covering the Laskar class it has adopted the de scription of those three terms without referring to Puratan or Deshi
The two Constitution Bench judgments indicate that enquiry is contemplated before the Presidential Order is made but any amendment to the Presidential Order can only be by legislation
We do not think we should assume jurisdic tion and enter into an enquiry to determine whether the three terms indicated in the Presidential Order include Deshi Tripura which covers the Laskar community but we consider it appropriate to commend to the authorities con cerned that as and when the question is reviewed it should be examined whether the claim of the appellant representing the Laskar community to be included in the scheduled tribes is genuine and should therefore be entertained
Reservation has become important in view of the increas ing competition in society and that probably had led to the anxiety of the appellant and the people in his community to claim reservation
As pointed out by the Constitution Bench judgments which we have referred to above the basis on which inclusion into or exclusion from the enumerated list made under article 342 is contemplated is the changing econom ic educational and other situations of the members of any 587 particular tribe
Keeping that in view the State Government may initiate appropriate proposals for modification in case it is satisfied and after appropriate enquiry if the author ities are satisfied that the claim is genuine and tenable amendment may be undertaken as provided by the Constitution
This Court has indicated in some of the judgments re ferred to above that as a result of the detailed enquiry made as to the economic status the level of education and the necessity of protection inclusion into or exclusion from the Order is made
This material relating to the Laskar tribe in 1930 or 1941 may not have been considered suffi cient before the respective Orders were made for including the Laskars said to have been covered by the description of Deshi Tripura
Therefore even if historically this tribe was covered by the general description of Tripura that by itself may not justify its inclusion in the Order as a scheduled tribe
That is an additional feature which has weighed with us in taking our decision not to interfere in the matter
The claim of the appellant is dismissed so far as this Court is concerned but the observations which we have made may be kept in view
There shall be no order for costs through out
Y Lal Appeal dismissed


Summary:
In respect of the assessment of the appellant to income tax the Income tax Officer excluded the amount of interest on arrears of rent received by him in view of the decision of the Patna High Court in Kamakshya Narain Singh vs Commissioner of Income tax 1946 14  that this amount was not liable to be taxed though an appeal against the said decision to the Privy Council at the instance of the Income tax Department was then pending
Subsequently on July 6 1948 the Privy Council allowed the appeal and held that interest on arrears of rent payable in respect of agricultural land was not agricultural income as it was neither rent nor revenue derived from land
As a result of this decision the Income tax Officer took proceedings under section 34 Of the Indian Income tax Act 1922 as amended and revised the assessment order by adding the aforesaid amount on the footing that the subsequent decision of the Privy Council was information within the meaning of section 341b of the Act and that the Income tax Officer had reason to believe that a part Of the assessee s income had escaped assessment
It was contended for the appellant that section 341b was not applicable to the case because 1 the information referred to in the section means information as to facts and cannot include the decision of the Privy Council on a point of law 11 and 2 where income has been duly returned for assessment and an assessment order has been passed by the Income tax Officer it cannot be said that any income has escaped assessment within section 341b
Held 1 that the word  information  in section 341b of the Act includes information as to the true and correct state of the law and so would cover information as to relevant judicial decisions and 2 that the expression has escaped assessment in to cases where no return has been submitted by the assessee
The section is applicable not only where income has not been assessed owing to inadvertence or oversight or owing to the fact that no return has been submitted but also where are turn has been submitted but the Income tax Officer erroneously fails to tax a part of assessable income
Rajendra Nath Mukherjee vs Income tax Commissioner 1933 LR 61 I A 10 and Messrs Chatturam Horliram Ltd vs Commissioner of Income tax Bihar and Orissa 1955 2SCR 290 distinguished
Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy vs Commissioner of Income tax West Bengal  Madan Lal vs Commissioner of Income tax Punjab and The Commissioner of Income tax vs Raja of Parlakimedi Mad 22 approved
 Maharaja Bikram Kishore of Tripura vs Province of Assam  disapproved