9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" The facts are that the assessee had defaulted in filing the return for the assessment year 1970-71 by 22 months. As such, penalty proceeding was initiated under section 271(1)(a) of the Act and a show-cause notice was issued in this regard. The notice was duly served but the assessee did not file any reply. Though the penalty proceeding was initiated and the notice was issued by Sri P. B. Audhya, the then Income-tax Officer, he did not take any action in this regard. Subsequently, after about two years, the successor-Income-tax Officer, namely, S. N. Mishra, without issuing any fresh show-cause notice, levied a penalty of Rs. 7,525. The assessee having lost in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against him. This provision is similar to section 5(7C) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and section 39 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. In the case of Murlidhar Tejpal v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 129 a Division Bench of this court, while dealing with a case under section 5(7C) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, observed as follows (p. 135): "Learned counsel for the assessee, however, relied upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Calcutta Tanneries (1944) Ltd. v. CIT [1960] 40 ITR 178. It was held in that case that the succeeding officer under section 5(7C) of the Indian Income-tax Act had no authority to pass an order of penalty without giving the assessee a further opportunity of advancing arguments before him. With great respect we d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to observe that (at p. 448): "Learned counsel for the assessee has not brought to our notice that the aforesaid decision of this court has been overruled. In CWT v. Umrao Lal [1982] 136 ITR 49, the Allahabad High Court had held that when, on receipt of a notice under section 18(2) of the Act, the assessee had not put in appearance nor filed any written explanation, the succeeding authority was not required to afford him another opportunity of hearing. The decision in Ram Saran Das Kapur v. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 298 (P H), relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the assessee had asked for a personal hearing and that personal hearing was given by the officer but before he could give a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
