9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n reasonable opportunity of being heard by Sri Ajat Shatru, the succeeding Wealth-tax Officer, as required under section 18(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and so the penalty orders passed by him for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1972-73 under section 18(1)(a) were invalid and so were rightly cancelled by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?" The material facts giving rise to these references, briefly, are as follows : For the assessment years in question, the Wealth-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee-Hindu undivided family under section 18(1)(a) of the Act and issued notices under section 18(2) of the Act to the assessee. No cause was shown by the assessee. Thereafter, the Wealth-tax Officer, S. K. Sahay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed on the decision in Murlidhar Tejpal v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 129 (Patna) and CWT v. Umrao Lal [1982] 136 ITR 49 (All). In reply, learned counsel for the assessee contended that the orders imposing penalty without hearing the assessee as required by the proviso to section 39 of the Act was contrary to principles of natural justice and that it was rightly set aside. Learned counsel for the assessee relied on the decisions in Anantha Naganna Chetty v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 743 (AP), Ram Saran Das Kapur v. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 298 (P H) and CIT v. Smt. Chitra Mukherjee [1981] 127 ITR 252 (Cal). Before I proceed to appreciate the contention advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be useful to refer to the provisions of section 39 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee a further opportunity of advancing arguments before him. With great respect we differ from the view expressed by the Calcutta High Court in this case. In our opinion, the combined effect of section 28(3) and section 5(7C) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is that the succeeding Income-tax Officer has authority to pass an order upon the explanation of the assessee produced before his predecessor-in-office, if the assessee had failed to exercise his right under section 5(7C) demanding that the proceeding should be reopened. It is admitted in the present case that the assessee did not make any demand for reopening the proceeding before Sri V. Jha, the succeeding, Income-tax Officer, under the first proviso to section 5(7C) of the Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
