9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this legal judgment include the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act of 1961, the availability of alternate remedies for the assessee, the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose the penalty, and the application of relevant legal provisions. Imposition of Penalty: The petitioner, an assessee under the Income-tax Act, was assessed for the year 1967-68 with cash credits in the names of individuals. The Income-tax Officer added these amounts as income from other sources and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner levied a penalty of Rs. 16,250 after considering the petitioner's explanation. The petitioner did not opt for an appeal but sought revision before the Commissioner of Income-tax, who upheld the penalty imposition. The petitioner then filed for a writ of certiorari against the penalty. Availability of Alternate Remedies: The standing counsel for the revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the abatement of the application under article 226(3) of the Constitution due to the availability of an alternate remedy through an appeal. However, as the petitioner had waived the right of appeal and moved the Commissioner under section 264(1) of the Act, the objection was dismissed. The court found no other remedy against the revisional order of the Commissioner, allowing the writ petition to proceed. Jurisdiction of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner: The case involved a change in the relevant legal provision regarding the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for imposing penalties. The amendment to section 274(2) of the Act in 1971 affected the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The court referred to a previous case to establish that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had lost jurisdiction to impose the penalty after the amendment came into effect. The court held that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner was a nullity due to the lack of legal force. Application of Legal Provisions: The court analyzed the effect of the amendment to section 274(2) of the Act and rejected the standing counsel's contentions regarding the applicability of the General Clauses Act. The court concluded that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose the penalty, as established in a previous case. Consequently, the imposition of penalty by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, as upheld in revision, was quashed by the court. This judgment highlights the importance of jurisdictional issues, the availability of alternate remedies, and the application of relevant legal provisions in matters concerning the imposition of penalties under the Income-tax Act of 1961.
|
