| Case ID |
2e572365-c3cc-4286-af3a-da76b306ba55 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
19 of 1979 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 1985 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 01, 1985 |
| Decision |
The High Court upheld the validity of the notice issued under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, stating that the notice was not invalid due to the Income Tax Officer's (ITO's) failure to strike off any inappropriate portions. The court emphasized that the purpose of the notice was to inform the assessee of the initiation of penalty proceedings, and since the assessee was not misled regarding the nature of the offence, the notice was valid. The court also directed the Tribunal to properly examine the applicability of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), as it had not been adequately addressed in previous proceedings. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of sections 271 and 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly concerning the validity of penalty notices issued for concealment of income and the provision of inaccurate particulars. The High Court addressed whether the notice was rendered invalid due to the ITO's failure to strike off inappropriate language. The court concluded that as long as the notice effectively informed the assessee of the penalty proceedings, its validity was intact. The case highlights the significance of adhering to procedural norms while ensuring that the principles of natural justice are observed. The court's ruling reinforces the necessity for clear communication in legal notices while also mandating a thorough review of the applicability of legal provisions regarding penalties. This case serves as a precedent for future interpretations of similar issues in tax law, emphasizing both compliance with procedural requirements and the importance of fair representation of the allegations made against the taxpayer. |
| Court |
High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Jeevan Reddy,
Anjaneyulu
|
| Lawyers |
M.S.N. Murthy,
K. Jagannadha Raju,
K. Peddi Raju
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Chandulal
|
| Citations |
1985 SLD 995,
(1985) 152 ITR 238
|
| Other Citations |
K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India AIR 1984 SC 273,
N.N. Subramania Iyer v. Union of India [1974] 97 ITR 228 (Ker.),
CIT v. K.C. Behera [1976] 105 ITR 193 (Ori.),
Addl. CIT v. Burugupalli China Krishnamurthy [1980] 121 ITR 326 (AP),
CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC),
CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC),
CIT v. Koduri Papa Rao [1976] 102 ITR 834 (AP),
Addl. CIT v. Prasadi Sao Rajendra Prasad [1984] 145 ITR 504 (Pat.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
274,
271(1)(c)
|