| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 72 1975 SLD 72 (1976) 33 TAX 205 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Reference No. 7 of 1969, decision dated: 13-11-1975, hearing DATE : 3rd July, 1975
MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Appellant. Karamat Nazir Bhandari, Advocate, for the
Respondent
Civil Reference No. 7 of 1969, decision dated: 13-11-1975, hearing DATE : 3rd July, 1975
MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Appellant. Karamat Nazir Bhandari, Advocate, for the
Respondent
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE
VS
JALAL AUTOMOBILES
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section: 18,18A,46(1)
[Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)].....Sections 18A, 46(1) (before amendment in 1967), 58(1) Penalty-Advance super tax-Failure It to pay advance super tax-Whether penalty under Section 46(1) Ieviable Held no-Effect of amendment; The short question before us as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding on 21st March, 1963 in accordance with the law applicable, that the penalty under section 46(1) of the Act was not leviable for default in the advance payment of super fax. In the exercise of the advisory jurisdiction vested under Section 66(1) of the Act, the High Court is not permitted to substitute its own decision for that of the Tribunal. In recording our opinion on the question referred to the High Court we are merely required to pronounce if on the date of the order, in accordance with the then prevailing law, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order imposing the penalty uninfluenced by any subsequent changes introduced into the law. Held, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty under Section 46(1) of the Income Tax Act was not leviable for default of advance payment of super tax under Section 18A of the Act. The provisions contained in sub-section (I) of Section 46 of the Act for the imposition of penalty on the assessee in default in the payment of income tax, do not properly pertain to the mode of recovery of the tax. As such it is difficult to hold that by virtue of the operation of sub-section (1) of Section 58 the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 46 of the Act were also adopted and in terms made applicable to the assessee in default of the payment of super tax. The amendment made in sub-section (14) of Section 2 by the Finance Act XL of 1974, in spite of the retrospective effect did not affect past and closed transactions and the decided cases that had already attained finality and could not be reopened. Case relied on:- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Aziz-ud-Din (Civil Reference No. 6 of 1968) (Unreported). JUDGMENT [The judgment of the court was delivered by MUHAMMAD AKRAM J].- In accordance with Section 18A of the Income Tax Act…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492