Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.61 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sahu Rajeshwar Nath vs Income-Tax Officer, C-Ward, Meerut And ... on 4 September, 1968
He was of opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahu Rajeshwar Nath v. Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Meerut:, furnishes a precedent which is applicable. We find that the learned judge's attention was not invited to the definition of the expression "defaulter " nor was he called upon to test the question from the relevant angle. We think it necessary to approach the question from this point of view. The arrest necessarily postulates the physical presence of the person and the detention in civil prison can be ordered on the Tax Recovery Officer being satisfied about certain omissions or commissions. The acts- or omissions might relate to the affairs or property of the firm or the affairs or the property of the individual partner. The penalty under which a person suffers loss of liberty is in the nature of a punishment inflicted on him for a criminal offence. It results in the deprivation of freedom that constitutes a fundamental right. A constraint on a man's liberty is an extremely drastic step that can be resorted to only on proof of a deliberate or wilful or culpable avoidance of the obligation to pay the tax. This is a measure that can be resorted to only because of certain antecedent acts of commission and/or omission. If the argument of Mr. Rama Rao is accepted it would mean that the law permits the ultimate remedy of arrest to be resorted to against a person to whom the opportunity to avoid the extreme penalty was not given by notice served on him. We think the scheme of the enactment is incompatible with such a cause of action.
Behari Lal Ram Charan Kothi vs Income-Tax Officer, "B" Ward And Anr. on 20 May, 1971
22. The counsel submits that in the present case the position is rendered clearer because of the definition of the word " defaulter " in Rule 1. He has also relied upon the decision in Behari Lal Ram Charan Kothi v. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, B-Ward, Kanpur, . In that case for the recovery of the dues of a company, notice was issued to another concern on the ground that the latter owed monies to the assessee. The garnishee denied the existence of any debt. But the statement of the garnishee was disbelieved by the Tax Recovery Officer who sought to proceed against the garnishee, on the strength of the certificate which named the assessee as the person to whom the procedure was to be applied. Although the garnishee could be deemed to be an "assessee in default" within the meaning of Section 226(3), the Allahabad High Court held that as no recovery certificate
was issued naming the garnishee, the proceedings taken by the Tax Recovery Officer were without jurisdiction. It was observed :