9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch 31, 1999 - It was required to be determined in the first instance as to how the original petitioners were defaulting assessees and only thereafter, the question could arise with regard to imposition of penalty - We deem it proper, on the facts and circumstances of the cases, to remand the matters to the concerned Commissioner of Income-tax, who will first determine as to whether the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se they failed to deduct the tax at source as on March 31, 1999. The Income-tax Officer (TDS), Hanumangarh, therefore, gave notices to the petitioners on May 26, 1999, mentioning therein that they were required to show cause as to why their case should not be referred to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bikaner headquarters, at Jaipur/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Bikaner, for levy of penalty w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner. On the contrary, it has been pleaded that vide order dated August 12, 1999, passed by the Income-tax Officer (TDS), Hanumangarh, the original petitioners were held to be defaulters within the meaning of section 201 read with section 221 of the Act and were, therefore, directed to pay the penalty amount being a sum equivalent to 10 per cent. of the interest amount paid by them. This pleading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermine as to whether the original petitioners could be treated as defaulting assessees or not for the purpose of imposing penalty. The order passed by the learned single judge rejecting the writ petition in toto is, therefore, not stainable. The impugned judgment and order dated February 22, 2002, is set aside. We deem it proper, on the facts and circumstances of the cases, to remand the matters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
