9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (4) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncealed the particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. If any authority is needed for this proposition, a reference may be made in my own judgment in the case of Stadmed (P.) Ltd. reported in [1974] 97 ITR 104 (Cal), as also the unreported decision of Amiya Kumar Mookerji J. in C.R. Nos. 298(W) and 299 (W) of 1971 (Turner Morrison and Company Limited v. IAC of Income-tax, Range II). These cases have fairly established the principle that the condition precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction for the issue of a notice proposing to impose a penalty under s. 274 read with s. 271 of the Act is that the ITO should be satisfied that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not given. I do not see how the decision is of any assistance to the Revenue. What is challenged in the present case is that the condition precedent for a valid issue of the impugned notice are not present in the instant case. The decision of Sabyasachi Mukharji J. does not appear to have touched this point. My attention was drawn by Mr. Mihir Lal Bhattacharyya, on behalf of the petitioner, to a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Navnitlal M. Mehta [1970] 77 ITR 990. At page 993 of the report after reviewing a number of authorities, Naik J. observed as follows: " It has been held that the decision of the Bombay High Court that proceedings under section 28(1)(c) of the Act for imposing a penalty are penal p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent case, such satisfaction does not appear to have been recorded anywhere. Mr. Sengupta, for, the Revenue, draws my attention to the decision in the case of CIT v. S. V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 ITR 739 (SC). In that case, it was held that under s. 28 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (now repealed) read with s. 44 of that Act, an ITO has the power to make an order under s. 28 imposing a penalty on a firm even after the dissolution of the firm caused by the death of one of the partners. This principle is applicable not only to unregistered firms as there is nothing in s. 44, or the context in which it occurs, to indicate that s. 44 does not apply to registered firms. I fail to see how this decision is of any assistance to the Revenue in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
