SADI RAM GANGA PRASAD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
LAWS(ALL)-1987-11-5
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 02,1987

SADI RAM GANGA PRASAD Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Sahai, j. - (1.) IN this application filed under Section 256(2) of the INcome-tax Act, 1961, by the assessee, as many as six questions have been raised. From a perusal of the order of the Tribunal passed under Section 256(1) of the Act, it appears, however, that only two questions were raised. As regards the remaining questions, they were orally raised but not pressed. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to reiterate the same questions and ask this court to ask for a statement of the case on the questions which were given up before the Tribunal.
(2.) AS regards the two questions on which the arguments have been advanced on behalf of the assessee, it may be mentioned that as regards question No. 1 regarding deduction of penalty of Rs. 3,000, the matter stands covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 350, where it was held by the Hon'ble court (headnote): " No expense which was paid by way of penalty for a breach of the law, even though it might involve no personal liability, could be said to be an amount wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business of the assessee within the meaning of Section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act and the fine paid by the assessee was not an allowable deduction under that section," In the circumstances, we do not consider it necessary to call for a statement on this question. As regards question No. 2, it has been found by the Tribunal that there was information before the Income-tax Officer to initiate proceedings under Section 147(b). In fact, the assessee did not disclose in its return that the amount of Rs. 3,000, which was discovered later, was paid by way of penalty. When this information became available to the Income-tax Officer, he initiated proceedings for reassessment under Section 147(b). It cannot, in the circumstances, be said that initiation of proceedings was without jurisdiction. The Tribunal having recorded a finding of fact, no question of law arises.
(3.) IN the result, the application is rejected.;


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