9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the assessee-company and ultimately a penalty of Rs. 1,55,800 was imposed. This penalty was imposed by the ITO for a default of the appellant in paying the tax of Rs. 6,23,222 on self-assessment basis. The ITO rejected the assessee's plea that this payment of self-assessment tax had escaped the attention of the then officer-in-charge who was handling the income-tax matters of the company. He held that it was the responsibility of the assessee-company to pay the tax on self-assessment basis as fixed by the law and that ignorance of law or mistake on the part of its employee could not mitigate the severity of the default. He also referred to the fact that the assessee-company had taken the same plea in the earlier assessment year also. He, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal could not be said to have gone into the question of constitutionality of the said provision or to have transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction. 6. The assessee sought for a reference to the High Court stating the question of law in the following form: "Whether the provisions of s. 140A(3) are ultra vires being beyond the legislative competence of Parliament and the said provisions infringe Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and it offends Art. 19 (1)(f) of the Constitution of India." However, in the light of the view taken by the Tribunal, it has reframed the question as reproduced in para 1 above and made a reference to the High Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88) 169 ITR 564 (AP), CIT vs. Mohan Lal Kansal (1978) 114 ITR 583 (P H) : TC 54R.666 and Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 70 (Cal) : TC 55R.737. 9. In the case of CIT vs. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has held : "A conjoint reading of ss. 257 and 260 of the IT Act, 1961, shows that the Act itself contemplates independent decisions of various High Courts on the question of law referred to them. It has visualised the possibility of conflict of opinion between different High Courts on the same question of law and has also made specific provision to take care of such a situation in suitable cases. In fact, in the light of the clear language of s. 260 of the Act, every Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s such." 11. The abovesaid view of the law has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in a recent judgment in the case of Suresh Desai Associates vs. CIT (IT case No. 153 of 1993 decided on 5th Sept., 1997) [reported at (1998) 148 CTR (Del) 345] and also finds support from a Division Bench decision of this Court in Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta vs. CIT 1978 CTR (Del) 183 : (1978) 113 ITR 817 (Del) : TC 8R.140. In short merely because the provisions of s. 140A(3) have been held to be ultra vires the Constitution by the High Court of Madras, the Tribunal deciding the case arising out of an assessment made by an IT authority situated within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, could not have proceeded on the assumption that the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
