TMI Blog1981 (3) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the records of the said respondents Nos. 3 and 5 and quashing the various orders of penalties and various notices of demand issued by respondent No. 4 (ITO, Companies Circle, New Delhi) and the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ; writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ restraining the respondents from imposing any penalties under the provisions of s. 271 or any other provisions of the I.T. Act in respect of the income voluntarily disclosed by the petitioners and writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing respondent No. 1 (Central Board of Direct Taxes and Revenue) and/or respondent No. 2 (Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi), waiving and/or reducing the minimum amount of penalty by way of an appropriate order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e., from 1958-59 to 1965-66. At that time assessments up to 1959-60 were complete. Thus, assessments for two years, 1958-59 and 1959-60, were reopened for the purposes of spreading over of the income disclosed. Admittedly, the disclosed income was spread over as agreed. The IAC (respondent No. 3) issued various notices to the firm, dated March 22, 1968, calling upon it to show cause why penalty should not be imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the non-disclosure of the income relating to the aforesaid period. Ultimately, a penalty of, Rs. 4,90,365 was imposed on the petitioners for the years 1958-59 to 1964-65. The firm preferred appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The said appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve the penalty under s. 271(4A) of the I.T. Act, 1961, after giving a hearing to the petitioners on March 25, 1968. Shri M. G. C. Goyal, ITO, has filed an affidavit on behalf of the Commissioner. He raises two preliminary objections. First, that this court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction inasmuch as the petitioners had not exhausted the alternative remedy by way of reference under s. 256 of the Act, and, secondly, because, disputed questions of facts are involved. On merits it is contended that the ITO was fully competent to initiate penalty proceedings. For invoking the provisions of s. 271(4A), the statute had prescribed certain guidelines, namely, (i) the disclosure should be voluntary and made in good faith; (ii) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioners, made only two submissions before us. These were, (i) that the imposition of penalty was premature inasmuch as the application of the petitioners under s. 271(4A) for waiver of the penalty was still pending disposal; and (ii) the condition precedent, namely, the satisfaction of the ITO that the assessee had concealed his income had not been satisfied in this case in view of the petitioners having come forward and voluntarily disclosed their total income. Neither of these submissions, in our view, has any substance. Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act reads as under : " 271. (1) If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person-... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
