Law:

Section:

Section 129 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Change of incumbent of an office - Assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70 - Whether when, there, is change in officer, penalty can not be imposed without a fresh notice by succeeding officer, to assessee - Held, yes FACTS The Income-tax Officer imposed penalty on the assessee. On appeal, the Tribunal held that notice was essential as there was a change in the officer, and, therefore, the imposition of penalty could not be upheld. The Tribunal also rejected the revenue's application seeking reference. On application : HELD Without a fresh notice, by the succeeding officer, the assessee may not be able to know that there was a change in the officer and, that, thereby, an occasion has arisen for him to exercise the right which is conferred on him under the proviso to section 129. In view of aforesaid, the order of the Tribunal was to be affirmed. Note: The case was decided in favour of assessee. CASE REFERRED TO Anantha Naganna Chetty v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 743 (AP). JUDGMENT Sambasiva Rao, CJ.-These five wealth-tax cases have been preferred by the revenue. They relate to imposition of penalty on a wealth-tax assessee for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70. The question which the revenue unsuccessfully tried to persuade the Tribunal to refer to this court and which they now want this court to direct the Tribunal to do so is : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, fresh notices affording an opportunity to the assessee of being heard were necessary under the statute ?" That such a notice is necessary has been held by a Division Bench of this court in Anantha Naganna Chetty v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 743 (AP).…

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