9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (4) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 28 of the Income-tax Act of 1922 was issued, calling upon the assessee to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for concealment of income in respect of his partnership firm. The petitioner (the present respondent) sent a reply to this notice on October 12, 1944, after which, nothing was done by the department for 12 years. Then on April 16, 1956, another notice was issued to Bisheshwar Lal under section 28 of the Act, to which be again sent a reply on June 11, 1956, pointing out, interalia, that the firm in question had been dissolved in the meantime in the year 1948. Again nothing further was done for another three years, but on September 7, 1959, a third notice was issued requiring the petitioner to show cause against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i suggest that the petitioner should have allowed the Income-tax Officer to impose the penalty and should then have gone up in appeal, as provided under the Act. But, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we feel that the petitioner was justified in preferring to adopt the more efficacious remedy of coming to this court with a writ petition. We note, moreover, that even despite the existence of the alternative remedy, the learned single judge has seen fit to issue the writ ; and again we are reluctant to interfere in special appeal with the single judge's exercise of discretion in such matters. The last point is the most important. Mr. Gopal Behari's contention is that, since no period of limitation is provided in the Act for the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The answer to the question of what is a reasonable time will of course depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case we are fully satisfied that the time which lapsed between the assessment (accompanied by the original notice) of 1944, and the notice issued in 1956, in the present case was not a reasonable time. As pointed out by the learned single judge, there could be some justification for the income-tax department staying its hands up to the year 1949, when the appeal against the assessment was finally decided, but between 1949 and 1956, there is not the least suggestion of any valid excuse for inaction on the part of the department. We, therefore, see no merit in the special appeal, which is accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
