TMI Blog1961 (9) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted by the official liquidator. There were four assessment years. For the year 1951-52, penalty order was passed by the Income-tax Officer on 25th November, 1952, imposing a penalty of ₹ 12,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated 5th March, 1954, reduced the penalty to ₹ 6,500. There was no appeal from this order by the assessee. With regard to the assessment for the year 1952-53, penalty order of ₹ 2,000 was passed y the Income-tax Officer on 3rd April, 1954, and this was not challenged in appeal. For the assessment year 1953-54, penalty order was passed on 23rd August, 1954, imposing a penalty of ₹ 4,000. This order was not challenged in appeal. For the assessment year 1954-55, penalty order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is English case was also followed in Dinshaw Co. v. Income-tax Officer, Lucknow ([1941] 9 I. T. R. 215 ; 11 Comp. Cas. 107). Similar view was held by a bench of this court in Janda Rubber Works Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Salaries Section ([1950] 18 I. T. R. 951). In the last mentioned case there was also a reference to the case of Governor-General in Council v. Sargodha Trading Co. Ltd.( [1943] 11 I. T. R. 368), where a full bench of the Lahore High Court had expressed the view that the English case in In re Calvert was not a good authority to be followed by courts in India. The division bench of this court did not express agreement with the view of the full bench of Lahore. It was held that when a procedure had been prescribed by the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company except by leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose. The language of this section is wide enough to include proceedings under the Income-tax Act. No leave of the court has been obtained. In view of this, the claim of the petitioner for ₹ 4,000 on account of the penalty order passed on 14th April, 1956, cannot be entertained. In the result, the petitioner is entitled to succeed so far as its claim up to ₹ 12,500 is concerned. The official liquidator is, therefore, directed to admit the petitioner's claim to the extent of ₹ 12,500 in consequence of the penalty orders referred to above. This will be in addition to the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
