| Case ID |
399ed985-6c42-461b-9a0b-9e9d26097647 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
TAXATION CASE NO. 6 OF 1976 |
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Patna High Court ruled that the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) imposing a penalty was valid, despite amendments to sections 274 and 275 of the Income-tax Act. The court held that the provisions regarding limitation under section 275 were procedural and applicable to pending cases, thus allowing the IAC to impose penalties even for cases referred prior to the amendments. The court determined that the IAC maintained jurisdiction to impose penalties as there was no specific provision in the amendment that divested him of such authority. The amendment raised the threshold for IAC intervention from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 25,000 regarding minimum penalty, but since the case was referred before this change, the IAC's actions were upheld. |
| Summary |
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ganga Dayal Sarju Prasad, the Patna High Court addressed the implications of amendments made to sections 274 and 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the imposition of penalties for concealed income. The case arose from the assessment proceedings for the year 1966-67, where the Income Tax Officer (ITO) had referred the matter to the IAC after identifying concealed income exceeding the threshold for penalty referral. The IAC imposed a penalty after the amendment, which raised the minimum threshold for IAC jurisdiction. The court found that procedural changes in tax law do not affect ongoing proceedings unless explicitly stated. This ruling emphasizes the importance of understanding procedural versus substantive rights in tax law, particularly in relation to penalties for income concealment. The decision supports the notion that amendments to procedural law can apply retroactively to pending cases, allowing the IAC to impose penalties even when the conditions for jurisdiction have changed. The case highlights key considerations in tax law and the interpretation of procedural amendments, ensuring clarity in the application of tax penalties. |
| Court |
Patna High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
S.K. Jha,
Nazir Ahmad
|
| Lawyers |
B.P. Rajgarhia,
S.K. Sharan
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Ganga Dayal Sarju Prasad
|
| Citations |
1985 SLD 1339,
(1985) 155 ITR 618
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Raman Industries [1980] 121 ITR 405 (Punj. & Har.),
CIT v. Sadhu Ram [1981] 127 ITR 517 (Punj. & Har.),
Addl. CIT v. Watan Mechanical & Turning Works [1977] 107 ITR 743 (AP) (FB),
CIT v. Balabhai & Co. [1980] 122 ITR 301 (Guj.),
CIT v. Manu Engg. Works [1980] 122 ITR 306 (Guj.),
Addl. CIT v. Dr. Khaja Khatabuddinkhan [1978] 114 ITR 905 (AP),
CIT v. A.N. Tiwari [1980] 124 ITR 680 (MP),
CIT v. Eastern Development Corpn. [1982] 135 ITR 516 (Cal.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
274(2),
275
|