COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV Vs. DAROPDI DEVI
LAWS(DLH)-1983-11-37
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on November 18,1983

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant
VERSUS
DAROPDI DEVI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

DUTTA D C VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(DLH)-1992-2-54] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MOHINDER LAL [LAWS(P&H)-1986-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. BADSHAH PRASAD [LAWS(PAT)-1985-5-28] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.S.CHADHA, J. - (1.)This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) at the instance of the Department poses the following question of law for our opinion :
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) and thereby concelling the penalty of Rs. 5,000 ?"

(2.)The facts mentioned in the statement of case lie in a very narrow compass and are these. The assessment year under reference is 1968-69 and the accounting period ended on March 31, 1968. The assessee is a lady deriving income from property, share income from the firm of M/s. Om Parkash Jitender Kumar and Company, dividends etc. In the return of income for the year under reference, the assessee did not disclose any capital gains in respect of her one-half portion in the Ghaziabad property sold for Rs. 15,000 during the relevant previous year. Her explanation was that the house in question was actually gifted to her by her mother and, therefore, its value as on January 1,. 1954 be estimated at Rs. 85,000. The Income-tax Officer rejected the theory of gift and worked out the capital gains at Rs. 13,500. After allowing statutory deductions, he brought to tax a capital gain of Rs. 4,675. The assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 38,170 as against declared income of Rs. 30,624.
(3.)The Income-tax Officer also initiated penalty proceedings by a notice under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, dated December 7, 1970 because in the return filed by the assessee on November 6, 1968, she did not disclose taxable capital gains on sale of part house property at Ghaziabad. The assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer vide order dated December 8, 1970. For the first time, a letter dated January 29, 1973 was issued by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee requiring her to appear before him on February 8, 1973. On the same date i.e. February 8, 1973 the necessary reference was made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistance Commissioner for disposal of the case. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner issued a notice dated February 15, 1973 requiring the assesses to appear before him on February 24, 1973. After hearing the assessee ,the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner passed the penalty order on March 24, 1973. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 for concealment of income.
;


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