9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (12) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s justified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the refund of the entirety of Rs. 11,000 levied as penalty - - - - - Dated:- 13-12-1972 - Judge(s) : G. RAMANUJAM., V. RAMASWAMY. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by RAMANUJAM J.-The petitioner herein submitted a return of his income for the assessment year 1956-57. The Income-tax Officer determined his total income at Rs. 4,13,645 and the tax thereon at Rs. 75,661. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner contending that two sums of Rs. 72,515 and Rs. 3,14,100 arising on sale of shares were not taxable under section 10(5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. He also contended that he had the option of getting the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of this court in T.C. No. 244 of 1965, the petitioner filed a revision petition to the respondent herein seeking the cancellation of the order of penalty on the ground that no penalty was exigible in view of the tax actually payable by him being only Rs. 4,740. The respondent by his order dated October 16, 1969, rejected the said revision petition holding that in view of the provisions of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (Act 11 of 1964), the penalty of Rs. 4,740 was validly imposed and the balance of Rs. 6,260 had already been refunded to the petitioner. The present writ petitions have been filed (1) to quash the order of the respondent, (2) to direct the refund of a sum of Rs. 4,740 levie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act :...... Provided further that where any Government dues are reduced in such appeal or proceeding and the assessee is entitled to any refund thereof, such refund shall be made in accordance with the provisions of that Act....... (3) The provisions of this section shall have effect notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority." As seen from the statement of objects and reasons, the above Act is intended to remove difficulties in the collection of income-tax and other direct taxes referred to in the Schedule to that Act arising out of the decision of the Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer v. Seghu Buchiah Setty whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use (c) deal with the consequential variation in the notice of demand already issued. The first proviso states that if as a result of any final order the Government dues (other than annuity deposit) have been reduced and the penalty imposed on the assessee for default in payment thereof exceeds the amount so reduced, the excess shall not be recovered and that if it has already been recovered it shall be refunded to the assessee on an application made by him to the taxing authority. There cannot be any dispute that this proviso is applicable to the facts of this case. Here the amount of tax as assessed originally was Rs. 75,661 and in respect of that a notice of demand has been issued, but this amount had been reduced as a result of the fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s he seeks to question the penalty orders on the ground that there was no default at the time of the imposition of the penalty. We are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to rely on the subsequent events leading to the reduction of the tax for questioning the validity of the penalty orders. Permitting the petitioner to do so would be in violation of the provision in section 3(1)(c) which specifically states that no proceedings in relation to the imposition of penalty shall be invalid by reason only that no fresh notice of demand was served on the assessee after the disposal of the appeal or the arrears of tax has been reduced in appeal. If the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the validity of the penalty orders, the only r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he tax liability is reduced it is inequitable and unjust to enforce the penalty levied earlier for non-payment of the tax as originally assessed. But it is well established that the court is to be guided only by the expressed intention of a statute and the meaning and intention of a statute must be collected from the plain and unambiguous expression used therein rather than from any notions which may be entertained by the court as to what is just or expedient. (Vide Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shahzada Nand and Sons) . As pointed out by Rowlatt J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue : " ... in taxation you have to look simply at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment ; there is no equity about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
