Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 penalty under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 could be imposed on the members of a Hindu undivided family after the family had been partitioned and had ceased to exist as an assessee.
Analysis: Section 25A provided machinery for assessment and collection of tax in the case of a disrupted Hindu family and made the members jointly and severally liable for the tax assessed on the total income of the family. It did not, however, contain any machinery authorising the imposition of penalty on the members of a divided family. Section 28 empowered penalty only against a "person" committing the specified defaults, and although a Hindu undivided family was a "person" while undivided, that character ceased after disruption before penalty proceedings were invoked. In the absence of express machinery, the liability to penalty could not be inferred or supplied by construction.
Conclusion: Penalty under section 28 could not be imposed on the members of the disrupted Hindu family. The answer to the reference was in the negative, in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a Hindu undivided family has ceased to exist before penalty proceedings are initiated, section 25A does not supply the machinery to impose penalty on its members, and penalty under section 28 cannot be levied in the absence of express statutory authority.