TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the penalty imposed under section 46(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read with section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, was barred by limitation under section 46(7) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. (ii) Whether a penalty under section 46(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read with section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, could be imposed after 1 April 1962, when the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, stood repealed by the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether the penalty imposed under section 46(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read with section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, was barred by limitation under section 46(7) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: Penalty under section 46(1) was treated as distinct from proceedings for recovery of tax. The limitation provision governing recovery proceedings did not control a proceeding for imposition of penalty. The reference was confined to the legality of the penalty imposed, and the argument that the impugned orders were really recovery steps was not accepted.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether a penalty under section 46(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read with section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, could be imposed after 1 April 1962, when the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, stood repealed by the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, had been incorporated by reference into section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. A repeal of the earlier Act did not affect the operation of the later Act incorporating those provisions, and the incorporated provisions continued to operate for the purposes of the Excess Profits Tax Act.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: Both reference questions were decided for the Revenue, with the first rejected on limitation and the second upheld on the continued operation of incorporated provisions despite repeal.
Ratio Decidendi: A proceeding for imposition of penalty is not the same as a proceeding for recovery of tax, and where provisions of an earlier Act are incorporated by reference into a later Act, repeal of the earlier Act does not affect the incorporated provisions in the later Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
