TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Act and consisted of four partners in the relevant assessment year 1957-58. The assessment was originally completed on January 29, 1959, on a total income of Rs. 67,648. Later on, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment under section 34 of the 1922 Act and passed a fresh order on April 9, 1964, on a total income of Rs. 1,47,648 adding Rs. 80,000 as income of the assessee from the business in the name of Isab Ahmed Mussa. The assessee took the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by its order in Income-tax Application No. 18848 of 1966, held that the business transacted in the name of Isab Ahmed Mussa really belonged to the assessee-firm and the name of Isab Ahmed Mussa was introduced with a view to avoid proper t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T v. K. S. G. Panicker, Kerala Produce Exporting Co. [1974] 97 ITR 525 (Ker), allowed both the appeals by a common order. At the instance of the Revenue, the present reference has been made. Shri S. N. Shelat, the learned advocate appearing for the Revenue, submits that the Tribunal has erred in relying on the decision in Panicker, Kerala Produce Exporting Co.'s case [1974] 97 ITR 525 (Ker) and the Tribunal ought to have followed the decision in the case of CIT v. Kishoresinh Kalyansinh Solanki [1960] 39 ITR 522 (Bom). He further submits that the decision of [1960] 39 ITR 522 has been followed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vasami and Co. v. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 819. Mr. Shelat also pointed that the said decision in [1960] 39 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arging provision or a provision imposing penalty, but that principle would not apply to those parts of the statute which contain machinery provisions. In the said case, the Supreme Court has also observed that by no stretch of imagination section 33B (of the I.T. Act, 1922) could be regarded as a charging provision and in section 33B there is a provision in sub-section (2)(b) prescribing the time limit on the Commissioner's powers to revise an erroneous order of the Income-tax Officer. Similarly, section 275, as it stood at the relevant time, only provides the period of limitation and it was not a provision imposing penalty. The provision which imposes penalty is section 271 of the Act and, therefore, the above observation does not help the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
