TMI Blog1957 (11) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) that there was no identity between the party against whom the penalty was levied and the assessee who submitted the incorrect return in which the correct particulars of income were not disclosed; and (3) that the order of the Tribunal levying the penalty did not satisfy the requirements of a judicial order. The order impugned was one by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,000 on the petitioner Messrs. Artisan Press Limited. The concerned assessment year was 1953-54 and the company had preferred an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal felling itself aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the officer and confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeal was heard on October 6, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... despatched to the assessee and was served on him on October 13, 1955. Meanwhile in pursuance of the direction contained in the paragraph which I have extracted a notice under section 28(3) was despatched on October 10, 1955, and was served on the assessee on October 10, 1955, itself. The assessee (the petitioner here) appeared in answer to the notice and submitted the three objections which I have mentioned in the opening of the judgment to the imposition of the penalty. These were overruled and the Tribunal proceeded to impose the penalty of ₹ 1,000. Hence this petition. It would possibly be convenient to dispose of the second and third objections before dealing with the first. The party who submitted deliberately the incorrec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concealment. If the Tribunal found that no further explanation was offered at the stage of objection than at the stage of the hearing of the appeal when the entire matter was discussed, they could do nothing else than to repeat their previous order and that is what happened in the present case. The objection as regards the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to pass the order was rested on the terms of section 28 as explained by the decision of this court in Sivagaminatha Moopanar Sons v. Income- tax Officer, II Circle, Mathurai [1955] 28 I.T.R. 601. The passage relied on read: In our opinion the proceedings for the levy of a penalty must be initiated by an authority when such authority was in seisin of the assessment or other proceedings i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1), etc., is wholly irrelevant for the matter under discussion. The accident therefore that the order issued on October 10, 1955, was served earlier than the order in the appeal dated October 7, 1955, cannot be any proper basis for holding that the assessment proceedings before the Tribunal continued till October 10, 1955, to enable the Tribunal to take proceedings under section 28 on the assessee. On the facts of the present case I have reached the conclusion that the penalty proceedings were initiated at a time when the Tribunal was seized of the assessment proceedings. In the first place even in the order under section 33(4) the Tribunal had made it clear that they were issuing a notice under section 28(3) to the assessee. The matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
