9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (3) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, made by the Income-tax Tribunal, Patna, referring the following question for the opinion of this court: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 28(1)(c) of the Incom?-tax Act, 1922, on January 31, 1958, in respect of the assessment year 1946-47 was bad in law? The material facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any appeal against the order of assessment dated October, 31, 1950, which became therefore final long before the penalty proceedings were disposed of. The learned Tribunal held that there was unconscionable delay in passing order on the penalty proceedings. It relied on some observations in Mohd. Atiq v. Income-tax Officer[1962] 46 I.T.R. 452] and thought that mere unconscionable delay in compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i criminal proceedings such proceedings should be taken within a reasonable time and the delay of 14 years (which was found to have taken place in that case) was not only unreasonable but fantastic. But the learned judge did not say that merely on the ground of unreasonable delay the order of penalty would be bad. On the other hand he examined the facts of the case and came to the following conclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (which provides for special rules of limitations for the various proceedings under that Act) there is no express provision pres?ribing the period within which an order of penalty should be passed, no such order can be held to be bad in law merely because of the inordinate delay. Mr. D. Mohanty for the department rightly invited my attention to an earlier d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
