9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand notice, under section 156 and the penalty order dated October 7, 1974, for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1965-66 passed by respondent No. 4, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-V (Central), and the order dated October 3, 1977, passed by respondent No. 1, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-I (Central), and all subsequent proceedings thereto and thereunder on the ground that the Income-tax Officer not having been satisfied in the course of assessment proceedings that the petitioner has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income initiated the proceeding. The initiation of proceedings for imposition of penalty is without and/or in excess of jurisdiction an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , respondent No. 2, had no competence, authority and/or jurisdiction to direct the authority to impose penalty in the manner as indicated in the order dated September 26, 1974, and as such the proceedings and/or order passed by respondent No. 4 are illegal and in excess of jurisdiction. The writ petition is opposed by the contesting respondents by filing comprehensive affidavit. It is disclosed that the assessments for the assessment years 1969-60 to 1965-666 in the case of the petitioners were either set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or by the Income-tax Officer under section 146 of the Act. The petitioner, however, filed the returns for the years .1959-60 to 1965-66 before the seizure of books by the C. B. I. After the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances clearly pointed that it was a case of gross and wilful neglect on the part of the petitioner who failed to prove that it was not a case of gross and wilful neglect in furnishing the original return. It is contended that the petitioner accepted levy of penalty for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1965-66 as it would be evident from the petitioner's letter dated October 5, 1974, addressed to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Range-V (Central), Calcutta. It is placed on record that the steps taken by the respondents are not contrary to law due to the following aspects : (a) I A. C., Range-V (Central), Calcutta, was vested with jurisdiction under section 125(1)(a) by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Calcutta, vide hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
