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

1993 Supreme(SC) 696

B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, S.P.BHARUCHA
Varkey Chacko – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income Tax – Respondent


Advocates:
A.Subhashini, B.B.Ahuja, M.M.GEORGE, M.T.George, R.SATISH, S.RAJAPPA

Judgment

S.P.BHARUCHA, J.

(1) THIS is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High court of Kerala. The judgment under appeal was delivered on a reference under Section 256(2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It answered in the negative, that is, against the appellant (assessee) and in favour of the Revenue (respondent), the following question:

"WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate tribunal is right in law in holding that the Income Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty and that he should have referred the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for imposition of penalty?"

(2) THE reference pertained to the Assessment Year 1968-69, the relevant accounting period having ended on 31/03/1968.

(3) THE assessee filed his return on 16/04/1970. With effect from April I, 1971, Ss. (2 of Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was amended. Prior to the said amendment where, in a case falling under clause (iii) of Ss. (1 of Section 271, the minimum penalty imposable exceeded the sum of Rs. 1,000.00, the Income Tax Officer was obliged to refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissio













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