| Case ID |
22c9d801-8d36-4d7d-b079-38641a17e91a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 1990 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 01, 1990 |
| Decision |
The Tribunal concluded that the assessments made under section 147 could not be defined as regular assessments under section 2(40) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The core issue revolved around whether an assessment framed under section 143(3)/147(a) constituted a regular assessment, in which penalties could be levied under section 273. The court determined that since the assessee had failed to file a return and the time for issuing a notice under section 139(2) had elapsed, the income had escaped assessment. Thus, the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty was upheld, reinforcing the distinction between regular assessments and those made under section 147. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of 'regular assessment' in the context of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly regarding the imposition of penalties under section 273 for failure to pay advance tax. The court examined the definitions provided in the Act, noting that assessments made under section 147, which deals with income that has escaped assessment, do not qualify as regular assessments as defined in section 2(40). The case highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in tax assessments and the implications for penalties when those procedures are not followed. The outcome reinforces the judicial interpretation that penalties cannot be levied unless the assessment is deemed regular, emphasizing the need for compliance with statutory provisions. This decision serves as a pivotal reference for similar cases in tax law, clarifying the boundaries of regular assessment and the conditions under which penalties may be applied. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Suhas Chandra Sen,
Baboo Lall Jain
|
| Lawyers |
S.K. Mitra,
S.K. Chakraborty,
R. Murarka
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Smt. Radha Devi Poddar
|
| Citations |
1990 SLD 2163,
(1990) 185 ITR 544
|
| Other Citations |
D. Swarup, ITO v. Gammon India Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 841 (Bom.),
Deviprasad Kejriwal v. CIT [1976] 102 ITO 180 (Bom.),
Kashiram Tea Industries Ltd. v. ITO [1981] 132 ITR 783 (Cal.),
Monohar Gidwany v. CIT [1983] 139 ITR 498 (Cal.),
Gates Foam & Rubber Co. v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 422 (Ker.),
Smt. Kamla Vati v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 248 (Punj. & Har.),
CIT v. Smt. Jagjit Kaur [1980] 126 ITO 540 (All.),
CIT v. Ram Chandra Singh [1976] 104 ITR 77 (Pat.),
CIT v. Ganeshram Nayak [1981] 129 ITO 43 (Ori.),
CIT v. Padma Timber Depot [1988] 169 ITO 646 (AP),
Charles D' Souza v. CIT [1984] 147 ITR 694 (Kar.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
273,
143(3),
147(a)
|