Law:

Section:

Section 271(1)(c), read with section 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 28(1)(b), read with section 22(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Penalty - For concealment of income - ITO, at time of passing assessment order, recorded finding that petitioner/assessee had neither filed valid return nor had he responded to notice issued under section 22(4) of 1922 Act - Thus, assessee was liable to penalty - Against said order assessee filed instant petition alleging that penalty was not leviable as no notice was served on him under section 28 of 1922 Act, and no opportunity at all given of being heard, as was imperatively required under section 28(3) of 1922 Act - However, from letters written by assessee to ITO, it was apparent that assessee did receive notice under section 28(3) of 1922 Act - Whether, on facts, contention raised by assessee was untenable - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, order passed by ITO could not be interfered with - Held, yes FACTS The ITO, at the time of passing the assessment order, recorded a finding that the assessee had neither filed a valid return nor had he responded to the notice issued under section 22(4) of 1922 Act. Thus, the assessee was liable to penalty. Against said order, the assessee filed instant petition alleging that the penalty was not leviable as not notice was served on him for proposed levy of penalty under section 28 of 1922 Act, and no opportunity at all given of being heard, as was imperatively required under section 28(3) of 1922 Act. HELD From the letters written by the petitioner to the ITO, it was apparent that the petitioner did receive notice under section 28(3) of 1922 Act. Thus, the contention raised by the petitioner was untenable. Consequently, instant petition was to be dismissed. Note: Decision was against the petitioner/assessee. CASES REFERRED TO Banarsi Das v. CIT [1936] 4 ITR 217 (Lah.) and Guru Prosad Shaw v. CIT [1944] 12 ITR 233 (Cal.). JUDGMENT M.S. Menon, J.-The prayer in the petition is that this court should issue: "a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from collecting the penalty of Rs. 650 levied by the First Additional Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode, by…

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