| Case ID |
4367cd7c-8af5-45d6-ac95-71cac2d149f5 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
MISC. APPLICATION No. 333 OF 1958 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 07, 1958 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court ruled that the Income-tax Officer's failure to charge penal interest was an error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner's argument that penal interest was waived was not upheld, as the statutory provisions were clear and mandatory. The court emphasized the importance of interpreting tax laws as per the express language of the statute without room for intendment. The court also addressed concerns regarding the delay in filing the petition and the nature of the revision application against the Income-tax Officer's orders, ultimately concluding that the petition would not be dismissed due to inordinate delay. The ruling reiterated the court's discretion in such matters and clarified the applicability of previous judgments to the current case. |
| Summary |
In the case of Lata Mangeshkar v. Union of India, the Bombay High Court addressed issues surrounding the Income Tax Act of 1922, specifically sections 18A and 35. The case centered on the failure of the Income-tax Officer to levy penal interest on the petitioner's assessments for the years 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, and 1951-52. The court examined the arguments presented by both the petitioner, represented by Mr. Palkhivala, and the Revenue, represented by Mr. Joshi. It was determined that the Income-tax Officer's omission was an error that could be rectified under the Act. The court also discussed the concept of inordinate delay in filing the petition, ultimately concluding that such delay did not warrant dismissal. This case highlights the complexities of income tax regulations and the importance of precise legal interpretations. |
| Court |
Bombay High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
S.T. Desai,
K.T. Desai
|
| Lawyers |
Mr. Palkhivala,
Mr. Joshi
|
| Petitioners |
Lata Mangeshkar
|
| Respondents |
Union of India
|
| Citations |
1959 SLD 243,
(1959) 36 ITR 527,
(1959) 36 TAX 466
|
| Other Citations |
Shantilal Rawji v. Income-tax Officer, E-Ward, Bombay [1958] 34 ITR 439
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
18A,
35
|