1966 (11) TMI 3 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty in August 1957 for the assessment year 1945-46
2. Inordinate delay in completing penalty proceedings
3. Tribunal's consideration of delay in imposing penalty
4. Effect of delay on the validity of penalty order

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, regarding the imposition of a penalty in August 1957 for the assessment year 1945-46. The court highlighted the inordinate delay in completing the penalty proceedings, where the penalty notice was issued in June 1949, but the penalty was not levied until August 1957. The court noted the lack of explanation for this delay, suggesting it could be due to procrastination or negligence on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal failed to address the issue of delay adequately, merely stating that the penalty was rightly levied without considering the impact of the delay on the propriety of the penalty order.

Moreover, the court emphasized the importance of considering the effect of inordinate delay on penalty orders, even in the absence of a prescribed limitation period for completing such proceedings. It referenced a previous case where a penalty order was quashed due to a 14-year delay, emphasizing that proceedings must be taken within a reasonable time. The court rejected the notion that delay automatically invalidates a penalty order but stressed that delay is a crucial factor to be weighed in determining the propriety of the order.

Additionally, the court cited a decision by the Orissa High Court and highlighted the need for legislative clarity on time limits for penalty proceedings. It suggested that the legislature should establish reasonable time limits to prevent ambiguity and ensure timely resolution of such matters. The judgment concluded by answering the referred question, stating that while a penalty could be imposed in August 1957 as a matter of strict law, the propriety of the penalty order should consider the changed circumstances and responsibility for the delay. The parties were left to bear their own costs, and the counsel's fee was assessed at Rs. 250.