| Case ID |
0fce180d-2a7f-4d77-bbc8-205ee2d4745d |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
C.A. No.62 of 1965 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 12, 1969 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court ruled that the penalty imposed by the succeeding officer without notifying the assessee of the intention to continue the proceedings was invalid. It emphasized that the assessee must be given an opportunity to exercise the right to demand a reopening or rehearing of the case as per the provisions of section 5(7-C) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The requirement for notice is fundamental to ensure fairness in quasi-judicial proceedings, and the absence of such notice renders the proceedings illegal. Therefore, the court answered in favor of the assessee, establishing that the levy of penalty without proper notice was not valid. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the procedural requirements under the Income Tax Act, 1922, particularly focusing on the implications of sections 5(7-C) and 28(3). The court examined whether a succeeding officer could impose a penalty without notifying the assessee of the continuation of proceedings from where the predecessor left off. The ruling highlighted the necessity of providing notice to the assessee, enabling them to assert their rights under the first proviso to section 5(7-C). The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in tax assessments and the necessity of due process in penalty proceedings. The case serves as a critical reminder of the legal obligations of tax authorities when transitioning between officers, ensuring that all parties are adequately informed and afforded the opportunity to respond to allegations of tax liability. This decision not only clarifies the operational aspects of the Income Tax Act but also reinforces the principles of natural justice within tax law, making it a significant reference point for future cases. |
| Court |
High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
GOPAL RAO EKBOTE,
RAMACHANDRA RAJU
|
| Lawyers |
Siva Rao,
K. Anantha Babu
|
| Petitioners |
ANANTHA NAGANNA CHETTY
|
| Respondents |
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD
|
| Citations |
1994 SLD 18,
1994 PTD 158
|
| Other Citations |
A.C. Metal Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1967) 66 ITR 14 (Raj.),
Annie Besant v. Emperor ILR 39 Mad. 1164,
AIR 1918 Mad. 1266,
Calcutta Tanneries (1944) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1960) 40 ITR 178 (Cal.),
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indo-Mercantile Bank Ltd. (1959) 36 ITR 1,
(1959) Supp. 2 SCR 256 (SC),
Cooper v. Wandsworth District Board of Works (1863) 32 LJ CP 185,
Hulekar and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1967) 63 ITR 130 (Mys.),
Kanailal Gatani v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1963) 48 ITR 262 (Cal.),
M. & S.M. Railway v. Bezwada Municipality AIR 1944 PC 71,
Murlidhar Tejpal v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1961) 42 TTR 129 (Pat.),
Ram Narain Sons Ltd. v. Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner (1955) 6 STC 627,
AIR 1955 SC 765,
Satparkash Ram Naranjan v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1968) 70 ITR (Sh. N.) 33,
Shop Siddegowda and Family v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1964) 53 ITR 57 (Mys.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
5(7C),
28(3)
|