TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above notice the assessee did not file any return of income. Assessment, as such, was framed exparte, under section 144/147(a) of the Act on 20-3-1980 and total income was determined at Rs. 8,40,097. Since the assessee had failed to file the return of income in compliance to notice issued and served on the assessee under section 148 of the Act, penalty provisions were taken against the assessee under section 271(1)(a) of the Act and for the said purpose a notice under section 271/274 of the Act was issued on 20th March, 1980. This notice also remained uncomplied with, however, the assessee was given another opportunity vide letter dated 13-1-1982, fixing the hearing for 20-1-1982. This also remained uncomplied with but on 25-1-1982 a letter was received from the assessee bearing the date 24-1-1982, wherein adjournment was prayed for up to 2-2-1982. Assessee's request was allowed. Further request by the assessee for adjournment was also allowed and the penalty proceedings were finally fixed for final hearing for 16-3-1982. On 16-3-1982 Shri K. S. Walia representing the assessee put in an appearance, but could not offer any reasonable explanation for the default. Penalty @ 2 per cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a penalty of Rs. 2,08,100 on your petitioner under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case no penalty should have been imposed." 3. This appeal was preferred by the assessee on 27-1-1984 and it was fixed for hearing for 30th January, 1985 and from that day onward it has been adjourned so many times at the request of the assessee and finally it came up for hearing on 17th February, 1986, 20th February, 1986; 27th February, 1986; 6th March, 1986; 14th March, 1986; 17th March, 1986 and 19th March, 1986; when the hearing finally concluded. Vide petition dated 21-1-1985 made under Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the assessee wanted the following additional ground to be taken : "That since the IAC (Asstt.) Range-IV, New Delhi, who made the assessment (out of which the penalty proceedings flow) for the above assessment year on 20-3-1980 u/s. 144/147(a) directed that the interest be charged which has been actually charged, the above penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(a) cannot be sustained in law, thereafter, and the entire imposition warrants to be quashed". For this proposition strong reliance was placed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted in ground No. 3 above, Reliance K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC). 5. That in any event the appellant firm was entitled to full immunity under Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act 1976, because the appellant paid the full tax due for this year in bulk amounts covering several assessment years." 5. The Department was directed by us to place on our file the copy of order for the assessment year under appeal made in the case of the assessee in penalty proceedings initiated at the time of original assessment as also copy of notice under section 148 of the Act issued and served on the assessees as claimed by the revenue. These two documents along with copy of letter dated 25th March, 1980 addressed to the assessee by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range IV-D, New Delhi, and assessee's letter dated March 13, 1980 were placed on our file. Penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(a) of the Act initiated at the original assessment stage were dropped vide orders dated 22-3-1979. Notice under section 148.of the Act was served on the assessee and the photostat copy placed on our file proves the same. 6. Factually speaking the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel for the assessee as to non-levy of penalty when interested has been charged under section 139(8) of the Act no longer holds good as discussed above in the body of the order and as conceded to by the learned counsel. 9. As regards non-service of notice under section 148 of the Act, we are satisfied that a proper notice was issued and served on the assessee and a copy of the said has been placed on our file at our behest by the Revenue. Original records were called for and these were put to the learned counsel. 10. As regards the other contentions, suffice it to say that once valid proceedings are started for re-opening of an already completed assessment the previous assessment is set aside and whole assessment proceedings start afresh. The Income-tax Officer (Assessing Officer) not only gets the jurisdiction over the whole of the subject-matter, but it becomes obligatory on him to levy tax on the entire income, i.e., the income already assessed as also the income subject-matter of escapement - V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 373 (SC) is the authority for the above proposition and if it is so then assessment made on the assessee under section 144/147 (a) on 20th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
