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

1984 Supreme(Kar) 375

MOHAMMAD SHARIF, S.A.HAKEEM
Commissioner of Income Tax – Appellant
Versus
Sujatha Industries – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
Mr. H. Raghavendra Rao, for the Appellant
Mr. G. Sarangan, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Jagannatha Shetty, J.—This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. At the instance of the Department, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the penalty levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) in view of the changed provisions of law ?"

3. The matter relates to levy of penalty for the assessment year 1971-72. The penalty was levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act. He levied a penalty of Rs. 15,187. The said order was challenged in an appeal. The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed on January 27, 1976, and the penalty proceeding was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on the same day, but the penalty was levied on April 18, 1979, i.e., after the amendment to section 274(2) of the Act came into force and, therefore, the assessment order was without authority.

4. The Tribunal has followe




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