PALLU MALL BHOLA NATH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THIS is a reference under s. 66(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Commissioner was required by an order of a Bench of this Court, dated 20th July, 1931, to state a case in relation to three questions therein formulated. The case has since been stated. The only facts which it is necessary to state for the purpose of the reference before us are these :-

(3.) THE second argument I would call the argument from logic. In my opinion it would be illogical to impose the penalty of assessment under s. 23 (4), against which there is no appeal, for the non-production of accounts when the order of the Income-tax Officer was issued before the return was field, and hold that the penalty could not be imposed if the order was made after the return was filed. THEre is no reason whatever to distinguish these two cases. THE failure in the one case is equally worthy of penalty with the failure in the other case. To draw a distinction between an Act in an illogical manner if it can be interpreted in a logical manner. THE third point is that, if the argument for the assessee were accepted there would be no penalty provided for the failure of the assessee to produce accounts or documents required by the Income-tax Officer if the order was made after the return was filed. THE learned counsel for the assessee referred to s. 37; but that section really provides for the production of evidence from any person and not specially from the assessee, and therefore, we cannot look to that section for a penalty for the assessees non-production of the accounts or documents.