Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 1415 1992 SLD 1415 (1992) 194 ITR 222
Allahabad High Court

B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND S.R. SINGH, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of Wealth Tax

v.

Prag Nath

Law:

Section:

Section 18(1)(c), read with section 18(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 - Penalty - For concealment of wealth - Assessment year 1965-66 - Whether where on date when IAC passed order levying penalty on assessee under section 18(1)(c), relevant provisions contained in section 18(3) had been amended and IAC had lost jurisdiction to impose penalty, Tribunal was justified in striking down said penalty order - Held, yes FACTS Observing that for the relevant assessment year there was concealment of assets by the assessee, the proceedings were taken for levying penalty on the assessee under section 18. However, since the penalty imposed exceeded the jurisdiction of the WTO, the proceedings were made over to the IAC. The IAC passed orders on 04-01-1977, imposing penalty under section 18(1)(c). The Tribunal quashed the penalty accepting the assessee's contention that, on the date the IAC passed the orders, the relevant provision contained in section 18(3) was amended and the IAC lost the jurisdiction to impose the penalty. On reference: HELD Following the decision of the Allahbad High Court in CIT v. Om Sons [1979] 116 ITR 215 it was to be held in the instant case that the Tribunal was justified in striking down the order of the IAC on the ground that the IAC had no jurisdiction to pass the penalty order. Note: The decision is in favour of the assessee. CASE REFERRED TO CIT v. Om Sons [1979] 116 ITR 215 (All.). JUDGMENT B.P. Jeevan Reddy, CJ.- Under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has stated the following question: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in striking down the order dated January 4, 1977, of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the penalty order?" For the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee, an individual, filed the return on February 8, 1967. Proceedings were taken under section 17 of the Act in response to which another return was filed on December 1, 1971. Observing that there was concealment of assets by the assessee, proceedings were taken for levying…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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