9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (9) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ively appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. Both these appellate authorities gave some relief to the assessee for the four assessment years. Between October 5, 1949, and August 10, 1961, the Income-tax Officer, Gonda, issued a series of notices to the firm calling upon it to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on the assessee-firm under section 28(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the firm concealed its income relevant to the four assessment years. The firm sent several replies to the effect that there was no concealment of income on the part of the firm. Ultimately, on April 19, 1963, Bisheswar Lal filed in this court the present writ petition challenging the penalty proceedings. The petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken into consideration and the responsibility for the inordinate delay should be considered and fastened before levying penalty or upholding it. In that case it was found that the assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1945-46 on July 20, 1949. There was no valid explanation for the delay in filing the return. Thus, in that case, there was clear evidence on the record that the assessee was guilty of laches in filing a return. In the present case there is no clear indication on the record about the alleged concealment of income. We note that the assessee succeeded in persuading the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal to reduce the quantum of assessment for the four assessment years in question. It thus a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, we cannot, on the mere ground that it is issued after a long lapse of time, quash the said notice. " The dealer took up the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court. It was held that there was no period of limitation for the exercise of revisional powers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The case was argued before the Supreme Court largely on the question of limitation. The Supreme Court pointed out that there was no limitation for the exercise of revisional powers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The Supreme Court did not lay down the broad proposition that the High Court can never quash proceedings of this nature on the ground that the inordinate delay in initiating such proceedings might ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1962. The department has made a charge of concealment against the assessee firm. The firm was dissolved as far back as the year 1948. The penalty proceedings relate to four assessment years from 1944-45 to 1948-49. That period of four years expired on March 31, 1949. These penalty proceedings dragged on for a period of 14 years up to April, 1963. Some of the notices are under section 16 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. The first notice was issued as far back as October 5, 1949. The counter-affidavit does not explain why proceedings under section 28(1)(c) of the Act could not be completed during this interval of 14 years from 1949 to 1963. We agree with the petitioner that the present penalty proceedings are vexatious, and amount to an abus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
