Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Continental Commercial Corporation vs Income-Tax Officer And Anr. on 9 January, 1975

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Varkey Chacko on 7 November, 1980

10. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the aforecited rulings that the jurisdiction of the ITO/IAC to initiate proceedings for the imposition of penalty against an assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act read with Section 274(2) is to be determined with reference to the provisions of law in force as on the date of initiation of such proceedings. We are unable to accept as correct the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Continental Commercial Corporation v. ITO, [1975] 100 ITR 170, that it is the law which was in force on the date of filing of the return by the assessee that would govern the jurisdiction of the concerned authority to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 11 - V B Eradi - Full Document

Uma Maheswari And Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 20 January, 1987

After amendment in 1970 of section 274(2), the jurisdiction to levy penalty by the Income-tax Officer or a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner depended upon whether the amount of income in respect of which particulars are concealed exceeds a sum of Rs. 25,000 or not. Therefore, the findings in the assessment and accompanied by initiation of penal proceedings furnish a base for indentifying the authority to pursue the proceeding for levy of penalty. This jurisdictional foundation should not be mixed up with the applicability of law existing on the date of concealment of income reflected by the return field by the assessee. The Madras High Court in Continental Commercial Corporation v. ITO , held that the law prevailing on the date of filing the return is applicable for all situations but missed the crucial link between the factotum of detection and the authority competent to levy penalty and it is only on the date of assessment order comprising the satisfaction regarding concealment, the authority competent to levy penalty has to be traced in accordance with the law prevailing on that date. We are unable to agree with the view expressed by the Madras High Court.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Ram Gopal Neotia vs Income-Tax Officer on 20 October, 1981

We are taking this course because these cases are cases where the penalty proceedings were validly initiated by the competent authority concerned and the penalty orders have become nullity/invalid on account of the intervention of the illegality/invalidity after the assumption of the jurisdiction and at the stage before transfer of the penalty proceedings by the ITO to the IAC and irregularity on account of passing penalty order without issuing the show cause notice. This action of ours is in accordance with the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the senior departmental representative Mr. A.K. Ghosh. In Guduthur Bros. v. ITO (supra) the facts are as follows : For the assessment year 1948-49, the appellants failed to file the return within the prescribed time and the ITO acted under Section 28(1 )(a) of the 1922 Act, issued a notice to them to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. In answer to this notice, the appellants filed a written reply and the ITO proceeded to levy penalty of Rs. 16,000 without affording a hearing to them as required under Section 28(3) of the 1922 Act. The matter was taken up in appeal before the AAC who, pointing out that an opportunity of being heard was not granted to the appellants held that the order was defective. He, therefore, set aside that order. On receipt of the order, the ITO issued a further notice calling upon the appellants to appear before him, so that they might be given an opportunity of being heard. He also intimated that if no appearance was made, then he would proceed to determine the question of penalty, taking into consideration only the written statement which had been filed earlier. Before, however, the ITO could decide the case, the appellants filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of the writs of prohibition or some other appropriate writ against the ITO. The matter went up to the Supreme Court and their Lordships of the Supreme Court upheld the action of the ITO. While so holding, their Lordships have observed that as the AAC pointed out only to an illegality, which vitiated the proceedings after they were lawfully initiated, the notice issued under Section 28(1)(a) of the 1922 Act did not cease to be operative and it was open to the ITO to take up the matter at the point at which the illegality supervened and to correct his proceedings The notice under Section 28(1)(a) of the 1922 Act having remained still to be disposed of, the proceedings started after the order passed by the AAC could be described as during the course of the assessment proceedings, because the action would relate back to the time when the first notice was issued. The ITO had jurisdiction to continue the proceedings from the stage at which the illegality had occurred. The ratio of this decision fully supports our above view.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 49 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs K.S.D. Pandurangan on 18 April, 1995

Had the matter, however, rested with the opinion of this Court in the case of Continental Commercial Corporation (supra) and the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Varkey Chacko (supra) we would have chosen to consider whether the obvious mistake of law in reading the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of C. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar (supra) and the Punjab High Court in the case of Bhan Singh Boota Singh (supra) should be held per incuriam or the conflict should be resolved by a larger Bench.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rizumal Pherumal on 5 January, 1981

13. It is no doubt true that in Continental Commercial Corporation v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 170, the Madras High Court has taken the view that section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which relates to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to deal with penalty proceedings and which, by amendment, enlarged the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer with effect from April 1, 1971, was the provision dealing with the jurisdiction of the Officer to deal with a case and that it will apply even to the case where the offence of infringement was committed prior to the amendment. The assessment proceedings in that case were for the assessment year 1970-71, the return for which was filed on December 22, 1970. The Income-tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 4,000 as income from undisclosed sources by his order dated January 25, 1973. He then initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act and levied a penalty of Rs. 4,000. The Commissioner confirmed this order of penalty which was challenged by the assessee by a writ petition in the High Court. The contention before the High Court was that by reason of the provisions of section 274(2) prior to its amendment with effect from April 1, 1971, by Act 42 of 1970, the Officer did not have any jurisdiction to levy the penalty. The High Court held that the law in force on December 22, 1970, when the return was filed was the law that would be applicable and in that view, the provisions of section 274(2), prior to its amendment on April 1, 1971, applied to the case and the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to levy penalty.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs A. Subramania Pillai on 9 January, 1996

4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal contending that since the return was filed on December 13, 1970, only the provisions of section 274(2) as it stood on that date would be applicable and hence the Income-tax Officer should have referred the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty. The assessee also relied upon a decision of this court in Continental Commercial Corporation v. ITO . However, the Department contended that the provisions of section 274(2) are of procedural nature and, therefore, the amended provisions thereof would apply to this case and consequently the Income-tax Officer alone had jurisdiction in this matter.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Suretech Hospital And Research Centre ... on 7 October, 2005

(2) Continental Commercial Corporation v. ITO In the assessment of the petitioner for 1970-71, the return for which was filed on 22nd Dec., 1970, the officer included a sum of Rs. 4,000 as income from undisclosed sources by his order dt. 25th Jan., 1973. Thereafter, he initiated penalty proceedings under Section 27(1)(c) and by his order dt. 9th Oct., 1973, levied a penalty of Rs. 4,000. This was confirmed by the Commissioner. In the writ petition filed in the High Court, the petitioner contended that, by reason of the provisions of Section 274(2) prior to its amendment, w.e.f. 1st April, 1971, by Act 42 of 1970, the officer did not have any jurisdiction to levy the penalty. The High Court held that, as it was the law in force on 22nd Dec., 1970, when the return was filed, that would be applicable and Section 274(2) as it stood prior to its amendment on 1st April, 1971, was the relevant provision that was to be applied in the instant case and hence the officer had no jurisdiction to levy penalty.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 38 - Cited by 27 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next