| Case ID |
ebfe5e89-ce88-46d5-845e-cc488bf425fd |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Tax Case No. 1133 of 1982 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 09, 1996 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The tribunal's decision was found to be incorrect as it held that the Income Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to levy a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court concluded that the Income Tax Officer indeed had the jurisdiction to impose the penalty, given the procedural nature of the amendments made to section 274(2) of the Act by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970. The case was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the merits of the case, ensuring the assessee was given an opportunity to be heard. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly focusing on the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer to impose penalties for concealment of income. The case was initiated when the assessee, A. Subramania Pillai, filed a return disclosing an income of Rs. 2,105, whereas the Income Tax Officer determined it to be Rs. 25,510. Following this assessment, a penalty of Rs. 24,400 was levied, exceeding the threshold of Rs. 1,000, leading to arguments about jurisdiction. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the penalty's legality, citing the amendment's procedural nature, while the Tribunal disagreed, resulting in the matter being referred to the High Court for clarification. Ultimately, the court ruled that the Income Tax Officer had the authority to impose the penalty, remanding the case for further examination of the merits. This case highlights the nuances of tax law and the importance of jurisdiction in penalty proceedings. |
| Court |
Madras High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
K.A. THANIKKACHALAM,
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN
|
| Lawyers |
C.V. Rajan,
K. Mani
|
| Petitioners |
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
|
| Respondents |
A. SUBRAMANIA PILLAI
|
| Citations |
1999 SLD 237,
1999 PTD 1774,
(1997) 226 ITR 403
|
| Other Citations |
Varkey Chacko v. C. I. T. (1993) 203 I T R 885 (SC),
C.I.T v. Dhadi Sahu (1976) 105 ITR 56 (Orissa),
Continental Commercial Corporation v. I.T.O. (1975) 100 ITR 170 (Mad.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
271(1)(c),
274(2)
|