Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1958 (12) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s was completed on the same date, i.e., on March 21, 1952. The order levying the penalty was issued on 31st January, 1955. The assessee preferred an appeal against this order to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner an the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelled the order imposing penalty, on June 13, 1956, on the ground that there was no hearing given to the assessee before the order was passed. Therefore, accepting the contention of the assessee, the order of the imposition of the penalty was cancelled. After this on 12th July, 1956, the Income Tax Officer issued a fresh notice calling upon the petitioner to appear before him on a particular day and to show cause why the order imposing the penalty should not be made under section 28(1) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... equired by such notice, or (b) has without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 or sub-section (2) of section 23, or (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he or it may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, in the case referred to in clause (a), in addition to the amount of the Income Tax and super-tax, if any, payable by him, a sum not exceeding one and half times that amount, and in the cases referred to in clauses (b) and (c), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum not exceeding one and half times the amount of the Income Tax and super-tax, if any, which would have been avoided if the income .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the power to issue a notice for the payment of penalty. The detection as regards the concealment of the particulars of the income or the non-furnishing of the return of the total income has to be made during the time when the proceedings are pending before the authorities. It would not be open to the authorities to levy a penalty on their getting information with regard to the matters mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 28 of the said Act, after the proceedings are over. In my opinion, the restriction imposed is only with regard to the satisfaction of the authorities within the time when the proceedings are pending before them. The Calcutta High Court held the same view. The learned Judges in Guru Prosad Sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inion, this decision of the Madras High Court cannot help the case of the petitioner. 6. for the assessee invited my attention to the decision of the Lahore High Court in Banarsi Das v. Commissioner of Income Tax. The question raised in that case was whether the imposition of the penalty without notice being served under section 28(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act was valid, and as notice was not served as required by law, it was held that the imposition of penalty by the Commissioner was invalid. The question now under consideration was never before that court. Yet another decision of the same court brought to my notice was that in the case of Vir Bhan Bansilal v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Here the question formulated for the considera .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... come Tax officer could not be sustained because of the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the order of penalty. While observing so, the learned Judge also stated that section 31(3) (b) of the Indian Income Tax Act provided for appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such an order and that no action was taken under sub-section (2) of section 33. Under those circumstances, it was held that the Income Tax Officer ought not to have ignored the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In this case also, the question now canvassed before this court does not appear to have arise directly, and I do not think that decision could help the petitioner in this case.In Guru Prosad Shaw v. Commissioner of Income Tax already r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates