9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (11) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above three writ petitions, the petitioner challenges the orders of the Income-tax Officer, levying penalty under section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act for the submission of the returns for the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 after a delay of 26,18 and 31 months respectively. The grounds urged in the writ petitions originally were two-fold: (1) that the levy of penalty under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... those whose assessments have not been completed by that date in the matter of levy of penalty is discriminatory. But, such a contention has been negatived by the Supreme Court in Jain Brothers v. Union of India. The first contention, therefore, has to fail. Even the petitioner's second contention cannot be upheld. When the statute prescribes a time limit for filing a return, it can also provide a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereof need modification. But, if the attack is mainly on the quantum of penalty levied, the proper forum for agitating that question will be the appellate authorities constituted under the Income-tax Act. The petitioner cannot bypass those statutory remedies and come to this court challenging the penalty orders on merits. It is seen that in respect of the assessment year 1962-63 the petitioner f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he delay on the ground that the appeals could not be filed in time as he has been pursuing his remedies before the Central Board of Revenue as well as before this court. In that view we are not inclined to permit the petitioner to raise additional grounds at this stage and to express our opinion on the interpretation of section 271(1)(a)(i). The writ petitions as well as the petitions for leave to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
