SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(SC) 333

Income Tax Officer, Cannanore – Appellant
Versus
M. K. Mohammed Kunhi – Respondent


Advocates:
B.D.SHARMA, D.NARASARAJU, R.N.SACH, S.A.L.NARAYANA RAO

Judgment

GROVER, J.: The short but important question which is involved in this appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Kerala High Court is whether the Appellate Income-tax Tribunal has the power, under the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act) to stay the recovery of the realization of the penalty imposed by the departmental authorities on an assessee during the pendency of an appeal before it.

2. The assessee, who is the respondent, was imposed penalties in the sum of Rs. 18,000, 1,700 and 14,000 respectively in respect of the assessment years 1954-55, 1960-61 and 1961-62. These penalties were imposed under S.271(1)(c) read with Section 274 (2) of the Act for concealment of particular income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee preferred appeals to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal and made an interim prayer for stay of collection of the penalties imposed. The tribunal declined to order any stay holding that it had no power to grant such a prayer. The assessee then moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the Tribunal had the power to stay the proceedings as also the collectio

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top