9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76. Interpretation of section 129 of the Income-tax Act regarding the continuation of penalty proceedings by a successor Income-tax Officer without giving fresh opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Analysis: The judgment pertains to four original petitions where the Revenue is the petitioner, and the same assessee is the respondent in all cases. The issue revolves around the validity of penalty proceedings initiated against the respondent for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 under section 271(1)(c) and section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The respondent, an assessee to income tax, submitted written explanations against the levy of penalties for the above years. The successor Income-tax Officer, without issuing further notices or intimating the change, levied penalties for all three years and under section 271(1)(a) for 1975-76. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal canceled the penalties citing the lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard before imposition, relying on a decision of the Calcutta High Court. The Revenue filed petitions seeking referral of questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order. The court considered conflicting decisions of various High Courts regarding the continuation of penalty proceedings by a successor officer based on written representations of the assessee without a fresh opportunity of being heard. The court analyzed the scope of section 129 of the Income-tax Act in conjunction with sections 271 and 274. The Revenue argued that the decisions of certain High Courts support the view that a successor officer can continue penalty proceedings based on written submissions of the assessee without a fresh hearing if the assessee does not demand a personal hearing or rehearing. The assessee contended that the decisions of other High Courts support the stance that the levy of penalty without affording a fresh opportunity of being heard is illegal and unauthorized. The court examined the facts where the assessee filed objections but did not request a personal hearing or rehearing. The court found questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order and directed the Tribunal to refer these questions for the court's decision, highlighting the need for clarity on the interpretation of section 129 of the Income-tax Act in the context of penalty proceedings. In conclusion, the court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer specific questions of law for the court's decision, emphasizing the importance of resolving the conflicting interpretations of the law regarding the continuation of penalty proceedings by a successor Income-tax Officer without providing a fresh opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The judgment underscores the significance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in penalty imposition under the Income-tax Act.
|
