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

1988 Supreme(Cal) 434

A.K.SENGUPTA, J.N.HORE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX – Appellant
Versus
MADANLAL SOHANLAL – Respondent


AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J.

( 1 ) AT the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-VI, the following question of law has been referred to this court under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1965-66 :"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?"

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this reference are that the assessee is a registered firm and the reference relates to the assessment year 1955-56. The assessment in this case was originally made in March, 1960, bringing to tax Rs. 12,26,206 on account of deemed dividend under the provisions of Section 12 (1b) read with Section 2 (6a) (e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In the course of the reopened assessment proceedings, action for penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) was also initiated and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,56,000 under Section 271 (1) (c ).

( 3 ) THE assessee, being aggrieved by this order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, came up in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal held that since


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