Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.32 seconds)Om Prakash Agarwal vs Income Tax Officer on 21 September, 1966
In the first place the first proviso says that before the levy of a penalty the assessed shall be given an opportunity of being heard and obviously where there is a non-payment, all that the assessed may be able to show is that there were good and sufficient reasons for the non-payment. It would, therefore, appear that the existence of good and sufficient reasons may be a ground to persuade the ITO not to impose a penalty under s. 221. In fact the second proviso to the section which has been later introduced with effect from April 1, 1971, clearly provides that no penalty shall be levied where the ITO is satisfied that the default was for good and sufficient reasons. There are also judicial decisions in addition to the Allahabad High Court's decision in Om Prakash Agarwal v. ITO [1967] 66 ITR 175, referred to in the order dated May 6, 1974, to the effect that the mere non-payment of tax does not attract the penalty and that it good and sufficient reasons are shown a penalty need not be and may not be levied, vide Varghese v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 577 (Ker), Nachimuthu Industrial Association v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 611 (Mad), CIT v. Vijayanthimala [1977] 108 ITR 882 (Mad) and Addl.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kalyanmal Mills Tent Factory on 6 February, 1980
CIT v. Kalyanmal Mills Tent Factory [1979] 116 ITR 881 (M.P). We decided on not think it is necessary to elaborate further on this aspect of the matter. We have also dealt with a similar issue in our judgment in Addl.
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Free Wheels India Ltd. on 14 September, 1981
CIT v. Free Wheels India Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 378 (Delhi), where we have given reasons for coming to a like conclusion in the context of s. 140A(3) of the Act.
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969
6. On behalf of the assessed reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211; [1972] 83 ITR 26 and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Om Prakash Agarwal v. ITO [1967] 66 ITR 175. In the light of these decisions this court observed that two questions arose for consideration, namely, (1) whether the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. [1972] 83 ITR 26, were of a general nature applicable also to penalties levied under the Act; and (2) whether these observations also apply to penalty levied under s. 221 of the Act which, unlike the penalties leviable under the other provisions of the Act, is one of the modes of recovery of tax.
Section 24 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Dr. P.A. Varghese vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 December, 1970
In the first place the first proviso says that before the levy of a penalty the assessed shall be given an opportunity of being heard and obviously where there is a non-payment, all that the assessed may be able to show is that there were good and sufficient reasons for the non-payment. It would, therefore, appear that the existence of good and sufficient reasons may be a ground to persuade the ITO not to impose a penalty under s. 221. In fact the second proviso to the section which has been later introduced with effect from April 1, 1971, clearly provides that no penalty shall be levied where the ITO is satisfied that the default was for good and sufficient reasons. There are also judicial decisions in addition to the Allahabad High Court's decision in Om Prakash Agarwal v. ITO [1967] 66 ITR 175, referred to in the order dated May 6, 1974, to the effect that the mere non-payment of tax does not attract the penalty and that it good and sufficient reasons are shown a penalty need not be and may not be levied, vide Varghese v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 577 (Ker), Nachimuthu Industrial Association v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 611 (Mad), CIT v. Vijayanthimala [1977] 108 ITR 882 (Mad) and Addl.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. Vijayanthimala on 14 December, 1976
In the first place the first proviso says that before the levy of a penalty the assessed shall be given an opportunity of being heard and obviously where there is a non-payment, all that the assessed may be able to show is that there were good and sufficient reasons for the non-payment. It would, therefore, appear that the existence of good and sufficient reasons may be a ground to persuade the ITO not to impose a penalty under s. 221. In fact the second proviso to the section which has been later introduced with effect from April 1, 1971, clearly provides that no penalty shall be levied where the ITO is satisfied that the default was for good and sufficient reasons. There are also judicial decisions in addition to the Allahabad High Court's decision in Om Prakash Agarwal v. ITO [1967] 66 ITR 175, referred to in the order dated May 6, 1974, to the effect that the mere non-payment of tax does not attract the penalty and that it good and sufficient reasons are shown a penalty need not be and may not be levied, vide Varghese v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 577 (Ker), Nachimuthu Industrial Association v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 611 (Mad), CIT v. Vijayanthimala [1977] 108 ITR 882 (Mad) and Addl.