9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Competence and authority of the Commissioner of Income-tax to direct imposition of penalty. 3. Validity of penalty proceedings and orders passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. 4. Application under section 154 of the Income-tax Act for rectification of mistake apparent on the face of the record. Analysis: 1. The writ petitioner, a registered partnership firm, challenged the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner argued that the assessment completed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was not competent to satisfy regarding the concealment of income particulars. It was contended that the penalty imposition was illegal and without jurisdiction as there was no evidence of concealing income particulars or furnishing inaccurate information. The petitioner sought the withdrawal of the penalty order based on lack of jurisdiction. 2. The respondents opposed the writ petition, disclosing that the petitioner voluntarily disclosed income before the Department's detection, which was disputed by highlighting the seizure of books by the C.B.I. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to prove it was not a case of gross neglect in furnishing the original return, leading to the imposition of penalties for various assessment years. The respondents contended that the steps taken were lawful, emphasizing the jurisdiction vested in the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 125(1)(a) by the Commissioner of Income-tax. 3. The court examined the impugned orders and the decision-making process, finding no grounds for interference with the penalties imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. After scrutinizing the materials on record and considering the submissions, the court held that the penalties were justified, and the petitioner's plea for interference was rejected. The court discharged the rule, vacated interim orders, and ordered no costs, staying the operation of the orders for four weeks. 4. Additionally, the petitioner's application under section 154 of the Income-tax Act to rectify mistakes apparent on the face of the record was rejected by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, stating no rectifiable errors existed. This aspect was considered in the overall analysis of the case, emphasizing the rejection of the application due to the absence of apparent mistakes justifying rectification.
|
