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

1995 Supreme(Pat) 607

SACHCHIDANAND JHA, P.K.SARIN
Ranchi Club Limited – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income Tax – Respondent


Judgment

Sachchidanand Jha, J.

1. The petitioner, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, has challenged the validity of the assessment order and consequential demand notice under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the assessment year 1991-92, so far as it relates to the levy of interest. It has also challenged the vires of the provisions of Secs. 234A and 234B of the Act.

2. I do not think there is any substance in the challenge to the vires of the provisions, for, as is evident from a plain reading of these provisions, they are not penal in nature and, therefore, no element of arbitrariness or violation of rules of natural justice, as alleged, can be attached to them. They merely provide for payment of interest by an assessee who commits default in furnishing the return either under Sec. 139(1) or Sec. 139(4), or in response to a notice under Sec. 142(1) of the Act has either failed to pay the advance tax or the advance tax already paid is less than 90 per cent. of the tax assessed against him. No person can make a grievance as to any provision which enjoins upon him the obligation to submit the return in respect of his taxable income
















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