| Case ID |
2e0ce92d-0430-4181-9fb5-9a03e7d409b6 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
Jan 10, 1989 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to impose the penalty for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The order of penalty was not barred by limitation. The assessments were set aside and fresh assessments were completed. The court emphasized that once an assessment is set aside, the assessment is at large, and the rights of the parties are the same as if the Income-tax Officer proceeds to make the assessment from the time of filing of the return. Therefore, the period of limitation for imposition of penalty is linked with the assessment date. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the imposition of penalties under the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The court examined the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to levy penalties and the implications of limitations outlined in section 275 of the Act. The decision highlights the legal framework surrounding the assessment process and the timeline for imposing penalties, making it essential reading for tax law practitioners. The case reaffirms that the timeline for penalty imposition is closely tied to the completion of assessments, demonstrating the intricate relationship between tax assessments and penalties. Keywords: Income Tax, Penalty, Jurisdiction, Limitation, Assessment Years. |
| Court |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
GOKAL CHAND-MITAL,
S.S. SODHI
|
| Lawyers |
L.K. Sood for the Commissioner,
Nemo for the Assessee
|
| Petitioners |
COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
MOOL CHAND BEHARI LAL
|
| Citations |
1991 SLD 42,
1991 PTD 149
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Prem Singh Deviditta Mal (1989) 177 ITR 236 (P & H)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
271(1)(c),
275
|