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

1953 Supreme(Cal) 148

Chakrabarti, Lahiri
Khusiram Murarilal – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
N.C. Sen Gupta, B.M. Agarwal, E.R. Meyer, Balai Lal Pal

Judgment

CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

1. THIS is a reference under s. 66(2) of the IT Act, made by the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal under the directions of this Court. Previously, the Tribunal had rejected the assessee's application for a reference in the view that no point of law arose out of the appellate order.

2. THE assessee is a registered firm and was assessed in that status. It appears that in the course of its assessment for the asst. yr. 1942-43, a notice under s. 22(4) of the Act was served upon it for the production of certain Sauda Khata, Pattan Bahis and Sahi Bahis for the Diwali year 1997-98. THE assessee failed to comply with that notice and accordingly a penalty of Rs. 15,000 was imposed on it under the provisions of s. 28(1)(b) of the Act. THE assessee's appeals against that imposition were successively dismissed by the AAC and the Tribunal.

The grounds of appeal before the Tribunal appear to have been all grounds of fact. In the course of the argument, however, a point appears to have been taken that s. 28 of the IT Act was not applicable to a registered firm at all, because a "person", as contemplated by s. 2(9) of the Act, was a physical person and not a notional person









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