1987 (12) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have challenged the constitutional validity of section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( the Act Penalty is leviable under the said proviso for any failure to pay the tax or any part of it along with the return furnished under section 139 or under section 148 of the Act. The petitioners have relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court in A. M. Sali Maricar v. ITO [1973] 90 ITR 116, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lity to pay the tax. It was also held that it has no rationale or intelligible nexus with the recovery of tax and was, therefore, violative of article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The earliest of the decisions in favour of the Department is Kashiram v. ITO [1977] 107 ITR 825 (AP). The Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Vrajlal Manilal Co. [1981] 127 ITR 512, has upheld the validity of se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nstitution. They also relied upon the Supreme Court decision in C. .4. Abraham v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 425, in support of their conclusion that penalty was only an additional tax and nothing more. Learned counsel for the Department has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Vrindavan Goverdhan Lal Pittie v. Union of India [1986] 160 ITR 318, in which the validity of section 18(1)(a) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X