AMIN CHAND PAYARELAL Vs. INSPECTING ASSTT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX
LAWS(SC)-2006-9-33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on September 05,2006

AMIN CHAND PAYARELAL Appellant
VERSUS
INSPECTING ASSTT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. BAREILLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-245] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MAHABIT PRASAD BAJAJ [LAWS(JHAR)-2007-8-30] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Ashok Bhan, J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against the order dated 28th September, 2000 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in FMA No. 1160 of 1990 whereby the Division Bench has set aside the order passed by the Single Judge of the same High Court and dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant.
(2.)Brief facts giving rise to file the present appeal by special leave are as follows:
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court, inter alia, seeking an appropriate writ, order or directions and/or to withdraw the order dated 26th September, 1974 passed by the Commission of Income Tax, Central and the orders of assessment and penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") and the demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act and also the order dated 7th of October, 1974 imposing penalty.

(3.)The learned Single Judge before whom the writ petition came up for hearing allowed the writ petition and held that the penalty imposed by the Authorities was not in accordance with law and consequently the order imposing penalty and demand notice for realization of penalty for the assessment years 1959- 60 to 1965-66 was quashed.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the grounds (a) that the imposition of penalty was without jurisdiction in view of the fact that interest had been paid for late filing of the returns for the aforesaid years; and (b) that the penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the act could not be imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax as he had no jurisdiction to do so and, only the Income tax Officer was competent to impose penalty as per provisions of Section 271(1)(a) of the Act.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.