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

1977 Supreme(SC) 250

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
D/- 2-3-1972.

Headnote:

Income-tax Act, 1961 - Section,256 (2) - Income-tax - penalty - Appeal by special leave from judgment of Gujarat High Court dated March rejecting an application filed by appellant Additional Commissioner of Income tax Ahmadabad Income tax Act, asking that Income tax Appellate Tribunal be directed to refer certain question of law to the High Court - Tribunal has set aside the penalty levied on the assesses by Income tax officer and confirmed by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner following judgment of this Court - Anwar Ali – Held, Court see plausibility submission on behalf of appellant that Tribunal appears to have overlooked amendment made by Act of Income-tax Act - Word deliberately which occurred in unimpeded section was omitted by the amendment and an explanation was added to that section which was previously not there - These amendments, undoubtedly ought to have been considered by Tribunal but taking an overall view of matter court are unable to agree that this is fit case for asking Tribunal to make reference to High Court – Court would only like to add that circumstance that court are dismissing this appeal shall not be construed as our approval of Tribunals judgment – Appeal dismissed

Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J. :- This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated March 2, 1972 rejecting an application filed by the appellant, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad, under S. 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, asking that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal be directed to refer a certain question of law to the High Court.

2. The Tribunal has set aside the penalty of Rs. 7.500/- levied on the assessee by the Income-tax officer and confirmed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner following a judgment of this Court in C. I. T. v. Anwar Ali, 76 ITR 696. We see the plausibility of Mr. Ahujas submission on behalf of the appellant, that the Tribunal appears to have overlooked the amendment made by Act 5 of 1964 to S. 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The word "deliberately", which occurred in the unamended section, was omitted by the amendment and an explanation was added to that section which was previously not there. These amendments, undoubtedly, ought to have been considered by the Tribunal, but taking an overall view of the matter we are unable to agree that this is a fit case for asking the Tribunal to make a reference to the High Court. We would only like to add that the circumstance that we are dismissing this appeal, shall not be construed as our approval of the Tribunals judgment.

3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

For Citation: AIR 1977 SC 2194

Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top