9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (4) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 962, by which he allowed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 325 of 1962, and issued a direction to the income-tax authorities not to impose a penalty on the petitioner, Bisheshwar Lal, in respect of the assessment for the year 1943-1944. The assessment in question was completed on June 24, 1944, and on the same date a notice under section 28 of the Income-tax Act of 1922 was issued, calling upon the assessee to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for concealment of income in respect of his partnership firm. The petitioner (the present respondent) sent a reply to this notice on October 12, 1944, after which, nothing was done by the department for 12 years. Then on April 16, 1956, another notice was issued to Bisheshw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any necessity for coming to this court earlier. In any case, whatever view may be taken, the fact remains that the learned single judge has condoned the delay and we are reluctant to interfere in special appeal with the single judge's exercise of discretion in such matters. Similar is the case with the plea of alternative remedy, Mr. Gopal Behari suggest that the petitioner should have allowed the Income-tax Officer to impose the penalty and should then have gone up in appeal, as provided under the Act. But, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we feel that the petitioner was justified in preferring to adopt the more efficacious remedy of coming to this court with a writ petition. We note, moreover, that even despite the existence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le him to show cause against the imposition of penalty might well have disappeared. We are satisfied, therefore, that when a notice regarding penalty is issued under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, after an unreasonable lapse of time, it amounts to an abuse of power and the proceedings can certainly be quashed by a writ issued by this Courts. The answer to the question of what is a reasonable time will of course depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case we are fully satisfied that the time which lapsed between the assessment (accompanied by the original notice) of 1944, and the notice issued in 1956, in the present case was not a reasonable time. As pointed out by the learned single judge, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
