9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Income-tax Department can initiate proceedings under sections 221 and 140A simultaneously, leading to a double penalty? 2. Can the Department re-initiate penalty proceedings under section 140A after passing an order under sections 221 and 140A? 3. Does an Assessing Officer lose jurisdiction after concluding proceedings under the Income-tax Act, and can a successor Officer issue fresh notices? 4. What is the scope of section 129 of the Income-tax Act regarding initiating fresh proceedings and continuing pending ones? 5. Can an incumbent under section 129 issue fresh notices or grant opportunities suo moto? 6. Can an incumbent initiate fresh proceedings under section 140A after passing orders under sections 221 and 140A? 7. Was the order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in 1983 under sections 221 and 140A? 8. Can the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal review its orders, and was the Tribunal's 1986 order justified? Analysis: 1. The petitioner failed to pay advance tax or full tax for the assessment year 1982-83, leading to separate proceedings under sections 221 and 140A. The Income-tax Officer imposed penalties, with the Tribunal upholding the levy despite the petitioner's argument that fresh proceedings couldn't be initiated under section 140A after the 1983 order. The Tribunal's decision was based on the petitioner's delayed tax payments and was upheld. 2. The petitioner sought reference under section 256(1) challenging the penalty imposed under section 140A in 1985. However, the application was dismissed, and the subsequent petition under section 256(2) raised eight new questions not previously mentioned. The High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that only the original question could be raised in the application under section 256(2). 3. The High Court found no merit in the petition, emphasizing that the 1983 penalty order was explicitly under section 221, with a reference to the notice under section 140A made to highlight the petitioner's non-compliance. The successor-officer was justified in issuing a fresh notice under section 140A, as section 129 allows continuation of proceedings at the same stage. 4. The Tribunal's decision on penalty imposition was factual, based on the petitioner's financial situation at the time of tax payments, and did not raise any legal questions. The High Court rejected the petitioner's argument that no hearing was granted after the second notice under section 140A, as the Tribunal's order indicated otherwise. 5. The Tribunal clarified its observations regarding the necessity of a hearing before imposing penalties, emphasizing the procedural correctness of the successor-officer issuing a fresh notice under section 140A. The High Court found the petitioner's arguments lacking in legal merit and dismissed the petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
|
