Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, where an assessee failed to furnish a return under the general notice, penalty under Section 28(1)(a) could be levied in proceedings initiated under Section 34 read with Section 22(2) for the same assessment period.
Analysis: The default under Section 22(1) was held not to lapse merely because no notice under Section 22(2) had been issued within the assessment year. Proceedings under Section 34 were treated as relating to the same assessment proceedings begun by the general notice, and not as a wholly distinct and independent set of proceedings. The expression in Section 28 referring to satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer "in the course of any proceedings" was read to include proceedings under Section 34 concerning the same assessee and the same assessment period. The attempt to confine penalty only to defaults committed after the Section 34 notice was rejected. The contention that the Section 34 notice operated as an extension of time under the proviso to Section 22(1) was not entertained.
Conclusion: Penalty under Section 28(1)(a) was validly leviable in the Section 34 proceedings for the earlier failure to furnish the return under Section 22(1).
Ratio Decidendi: For the same assessee and assessment period, proceedings under Section 34 do not break the continuity of assessment proceedings begun by the general notice under Section 22(1), and a penalty under Section 28(1)(a) may be imposed in the course of such proceedings for a prior default in furnishing the return.