1975 (12) TMI 78 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Income-tax Act, 1961

The judgment delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J. of the High Court of CALCUTTA pertains to a challenge against a notice issued under section 274(2) read with section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1964-65 by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Range-I, Calcutta. The petitioner contended that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue the notice as the assessment for the said year was completed by a different Income-tax Officer in Jullundur. The assessment order recorded the need for imposition of penalty, and it was transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-V, who then referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner argued that the satisfaction for penalty imposition should have been reached before concluding the assessment proceedings. The court noted that though the language used in the notice was inappropriate, it did not invalidate the notice issuance. The court relied on previous Supreme Court judgments to support its decision. Consequently, the challenge to the notice was dismissed, and the application failed. The rule nisi was discharged, and no costs were awarded. An interim order, if any, was vacated, and a stay of operation of the order was granted for six weeks from the date of the judgment.

In summary, the key issue in this judgment was the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the issuance of a penalty notice for concealing income particulars or furnishing inaccurate income details for the assessment year 1964-65. The court analyzed the sequence of events leading to the notice issuance, the transfer of the case between Income-tax Officers, and the timing of satisfaction for penalty imposition. The court clarified that the satisfaction should be reached before concluding the assessment proceedings, but the language used in the notice did not invalidate its issuance. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and relied on previous Supreme Court decisions to support the decision to dismiss the challenge against the notice.