SATYANARAYANA RAO, J.

The petition was argued by the petitioner in person with considerable ability and learning. He prayed in the petition that this Court should issue an order or direction to the respondent, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, to refund the sum of Rs. 100 paid by the petitioner as fee under Section 33(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and to declare under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that the portion of Section 33(3) relating to payment of fee is illegal

In the affidavit in support of the petition it was stated that the petitioner was assessed to income-tax in respect of his personal income by the Second Additional Income-tax Officer, Salaries Circle, Madras, on the dividend warrants received by him from agricultural companies. He preferred an appeal against that assessment to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax who however confirmed the decision of the Income-tax Officer. There was a further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. As required by sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act he paid the required fee of Rs. 100 as a condition for preferring the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellat