Order.- Three points have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the challenge to an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal imposing a penalty under section 28 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act impugned in this writ petition: (i) that the Appellate Tribunal was functus officio on the date when the proceedings for the levy of penalty were initiated ; (2) that there was no identity between the party against whom the penalty was levied and the assessee who submitted the incorrect return in which the correct particulars of income were not disclosed; and (3) that the order of the Tribunal levying the penalty did not satisfy the requirements of a judicial order.

The order impugned was one by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which imposed a penalty of Rs.1000 on the petitioner Messrs. Artisan Press, Limited. The concerned assessment year was 1953-54 and the Company had preferred an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal feeling itself aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeal was heard on 6th October, 1955 and the hearing concluded on 7th October, 1955. One of the items of dispute raised before the Tribunal related, to a claim by the assessee to deduct certain commissions said to have been paid in computing its total income. This payment had been disallowed by the departmental authorities on legal grounds and the propriety of this disallowance was challenged before the Tribunal. At the hearing of the appeal, however, the members of the Tribunal examined the accounts of the assessee for the purpose of finding out whether the payment had in fact been made. In passing, it may be mentioned, that the payment was said to nave been made to one of the directors of the Company by name Ponnambalam. The Tribunal examined the ledger and finding that the entry in relation to this payment was by way of interpolation, directed the assessee to produce the cash-book and supporting vouchers. All these were produced on 7th October, 1955, on which date, the Tribunal concluded the hearing and completed their order under section 33 (4). In the course of this order the Tribunal recorded:

“As, in our opinion, the assessee has concealed its income and has deliberately furnished particulars thereof in the return for the assessment year 1953-54 in the manner set out above, a notice under section 28 is issued calling on the assessee to show cause why a penalty under section 28(1) (c) should not be imposed.”

The order under section 33(4) which, as stated before, was dated, 7th October, 1955 was despatched to the assessee and was served on him on 13th October, 1955. Meanwhile in pursuance of the direction contained in the paragraph which I have extracted a notice under section 28 (3) was despatched on 10th October, 1955 and was served on the assessee on 10th October, 1955, itself. The assessee (the petitioner here) appeared in answer to the notice and submitted the three objections which I have mentioned in the opening of the judgment to the imposition of the penalty. These were overruled and the Tribunal proceeded to impose the penalty of Rs. 1000. Hence this petition.

It would possibly be convenient to dispose of second and third objections before dealing with the first.

The party who submitted deliberately the incorrect return claiming the payment of commission was the Artisan Press, Limited. The point urged was that as by the date of the penalty proceeding this company had gone into voluntary liquidation there was no identity between it and the party who submitted the incorrect return. This contention is obviously untenable and was properly rejected. A company exists until dissolution and merely because its activities are reduced and its commercial operations cease and its directors cease to manage it, it does not mean that it ceases to exist or that it has become transformed into a new entity. It is still a company, a unit of assessment with its ident

Click Here to Read the rest of this document