1944 (2) TMI 21

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... une 1940 the assessee returned the prescribed form blank but declared his alleged income on a separate sheet of paper. On 5th July 1940 the assessee was served with a notice requiring him to produce his accounts under Section 22(4). On 14th of October 1940 the assessee appeared and on the 15th of October 1940 the assess- ment was completed under Section 23(4). This assessment is not in question On the 14th of October 1940, a notice to the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be imposed was issued for the 21st of October; and on the 23rd of January 1941 a penalty of ₹ 772/-, a sum which was equal to the amount of income-tax, was exacted by the Income-tax Officer under Section 28. This penalty was confirmed by the Assi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was urged before the Appellate Tribunal, the latter refused to permit counsel to address them on this point because it had not been taken before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was not pressed in the petition to the Appellate Tribunal for a reference to the High Court. In these circumstances, this objection cannot be re-agitated now. As regards (d), Section 28(6) of the Income-tax Act, as amended in 1939, requires that the Income-tax Officer shall not impose any penalty under this section without the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. It is urged that this sub-section should be interpreted to mean that the Inspect- ing Assistant Commissioner should give the assessee a hearing as well as the authori .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , however, has no bearing on the interpretation to be placed on sub-section (6) of Section 28 which did not exist at the time when the Rangoon case was decided. All that this authority decided was that under sub-section (3) of Section 28 the assessee should be fully heard by the Income- tax Officer and such a hearing, according to the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner, was duly given. It is true that in the course of his argument Mr. Sant Singh endeavoured to introduce the objection that the Income-tax Officer had not given the assessee a proper hearing, but this was not among the grounds of attack in the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. It was not among the points urged before the Tribunal for a reference to the High Court; no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X