Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.46 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Additional Commissioner Of ... vs Joginder Singh on 20 May, 1983
6. An identical question arose before a Division Bench of this court in the case of Addl.CIT v. Joginder Singh [1985] 151 ITR 93. In that case, Shri Joginder Singh, the assessed, filed a return showing an income of Rs. 4,481. This return was filed prior to April 1, 1968. The assessment was completed on January 10, 1969, on an income of Rs. 8,481. Subsequently, this assessment was reopened and the assessed in pursuance to the notices under s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, filed his return on July 7, 1970, showing an income of Rs. 4,481 as before. The assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 14,481, which included further addition of a sum of Rs. 6,000. The IAC levied a penalty of Rs. 6,000 under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. On appeal by the assessed, the Tribunal directed that penalty be reduced to 20% of the tax sought to be avoided. The Division Bench, consisting of S. Ranganathan and Leila Seth JJ. after a detailed discussion, held that, in such a case, the penalty provision as on the date of the first return filed for the year should govern and not the date of the filing of the revised return. Reference, among other cases, was made to a decision in the case of Malbary and Bros. v. CIT , Addl.
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Onkar Saran on 21 March, 1975
CIT v. Onkar Saran and CIT v. Ram Singh Harmohan Singh [1980] 121 ITR 381 (P & H) [FB]. The Allahabad High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the said two cases had taken the same view. The question as to whether the penalty is leviable only with reference to the return originally filed or it is leviable with reference to the return filed in the reassessment proceedings or with reference to both, although not specifically answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Malbary and Bros. [1964] 51 ITR 295, however, the observations of the Supreme Court in that case impliedly mean that penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under s. 28(1)(c) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, corresponding to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, is leviable only once for a particular assessment year. In that case, different amount of penalties were levied on the assessed under s. 28(1)(c) of the Act of 1922, one for the return filed originally and the second for the return filed in the reassessment proceedings after notice under s. 28(3) of the Act of 1922 had been served on the assessed. The Tribunal had quashed the penalty levied for the return originally filed and had confirmed the penalty for the return filed in the reassessment proceedings. On a direct reference to the Supreme Court, it was held that the jurisdiction to make the second order was not lost because the ITO had omitted to recall the earlier order, although the two orders could not be enforced simultaneously or stand together. It was further observed that as, however, the first order had been cancelled, there was only one order and the second order was, therefore, a legal order. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the aforesaid decision of the earlier Bench of this court and follow the same. We, accordingly, answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favor of the assessed and against the Revenue. Under the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of the references.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ram Singh Harmohan Singh on 24 September, 1979
CIT v. Onkar Saran and CIT v. Ram Singh Harmohan Singh [1980] 121 ITR 381 (P & H) [FB]. The Allahabad High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the said two cases had taken the same view. The question as to whether the penalty is leviable only with reference to the return originally filed or it is leviable with reference to the return filed in the reassessment proceedings or with reference to both, although not specifically answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Malbary and Bros. [1964] 51 ITR 295, however, the observations of the Supreme Court in that case impliedly mean that penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under s. 28(1)(c) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, corresponding to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, is leviable only once for a particular assessment year. In that case, different amount of penalties were levied on the assessed under s. 28(1)(c) of the Act of 1922, one for the return filed originally and the second for the return filed in the reassessment proceedings after notice under s. 28(3) of the Act of 1922 had been served on the assessed. The Tribunal had quashed the penalty levied for the return originally filed and had confirmed the penalty for the return filed in the reassessment proceedings. On a direct reference to the Supreme Court, it was held that the jurisdiction to make the second order was not lost because the ITO had omitted to recall the earlier order, although the two orders could not be enforced simultaneously or stand together. It was further observed that as, however, the first order had been cancelled, there was only one order and the second order was, therefore, a legal order. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the aforesaid decision of the earlier Bench of this court and follow the same. We, accordingly, answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favor of the assessed and against the Revenue. Under the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of the references.
1