| Case ID |
0fa4fbab-8981-4691-894d-72c2f82dc13c |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appeal was dismissed as the court found that the Assessing Officer is not required to record his satisfaction in writing before initiating penalty proceedings under section 273 of the Income-tax Act. The court held that the absence of a provision requiring written reasons indicates that such a formality is not necessary, although the Assessing Officer must have satisfaction as required under the section. The court distinguished this case from other sections of the Act which explicitly require recording of reasons, thus supporting the view that the intention of Parliament was not to mandate written documentation in this context. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of section 273 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which deals with penalties for false estimates of advance tax. The Allahabad High Court, led by Justices M. Katju and Yatindra Singh, addressed the question of whether the Assessing Officer must document his satisfaction before initiating penalty proceedings. The appellant, Shyam Biri Works P. Ltd., contested the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, arguing that the Assessing Officer did not record his satisfaction prior to the penalty notice. The court examined relevant precedents, including CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. and Becker Gray & Co. (1930) Ltd. v. ITO, ultimately concluding that while the Assessing Officer must have satisfaction regarding the penalty, there is no requirement for this satisfaction to be recorded in writing. This ruling clarifies procedural aspects of tax law enforcement and emphasizes the need for clear legislative language regarding documentation requirements in tax assessments. The decision is significant for tax practitioners and entities navigating compliance with the Income-tax Act, providing clarity on procedural norms regarding penalty assessments. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
M. KATJU,
YATINDRA SINGH
|
| Lawyers |
R.P. Agrawal,
A.N. Mahajan
|
| Petitioners |
Shyam Biri Works P. Ltd.
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
2002 SLD 3015,
(2002) 259 ITR 625
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568 (Delhi),
Becker Gray & Co. (1930) Ltd. v. ITO [1978] 112 ITR 503 (Cal.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
273
|