| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1983 SLG 870 1983 SLD 870 (1983) 141 ITR 933 |
NOVEMBER 12, 1982 WRIT PETITION No. 215 OF 1973.
G.M. MIR, J.
Jagmohan Mahajan for the Applicant. T.S. Thakur for the
Respondent.
Seva Ram
v.
Income Tax Officer
Law:
Section:
section 140a(3), read with section 140a(1) [as it stood before 1-4-1976], of the income-tax act, 1961-penalty-for non-payment of self-assessment tax-whether provisions of section 140a(3) are ultra vires article 19(1)(f) of the constitution-held, no Facts Since the assessee had not paid tax on self-assessment under section 140A(1) [as it stood before 1-4-1976] within the time given, the ITO imposed a penalty under section 140A(3) on the assessee. On writ, the assessee challenged the imposition of aforesaid penalty on the ground that section 140A(3) was ultra viresarticle 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. Held Section 140A(3) is not confiscatory, as what is due towards tax cannot be said to be a property of the assessee since it is a debt due to the State. It could hardly, therefore, be said that section 140A(3) infringes in any manner whatsoever article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. Section 140A(3) itself is very clear and it is not obnoxious. It gives time for payment of arrears. After all, when once a person is assessed to tax he must and should pay the same within the time given. In a way by non-payment of tax assessed the assessee may be said to be misappropriating the money that belonged to the State. Again it could not be accepted, as contended by the assessee, that non-payment of income-tax was only a civil liability and if the assessee failed to pay the tax assessed, he should be proceeded against for its recovery in a civil court. Moreover, it is well settled that the penalty under section 140A(3) is only an additional tax and nothing more. When the Parliament has the power to levy taxes, as conceded by the assessee, it has the power to enact that if the tax is not paid, a certain amount could be recovered as penalty as otherwise the power to levy tax would become redundant without the power to impose penalty in a case of nonpayment. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed. Cases referred to A.M. Sali Manicar v. ITO [1973] 90 ITR 116 (Mad.), Kashi Ram v. ITO [1977] 107 ITR 825 (AP) and C.A. Abhaham v.ITO AIR 1961 SC 609. JUDGMENT 1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the Jammu and Kashmir State…
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