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 penalty for failure to furnish an estimate of advance tax could be imposed on the basis of reassessment proceedings under the 1922 Act and the corresponding provisions of the 1961 Act.
Analysis: The provisions governing penalty for failure to furnish an advance-tax estimate were linked to proceedings in connection with a regular assessment. Under the 1922 Act, regular assessment meant assessment under section 23, and an assessment or reassessment under section 34 was not a regular assessment. The same distinction was recognised under the 1961 Act, where regular assessment was confined to assessment under sections 143 and 144, while reassessment under section 147 stood outside that category. Since the statutory condition for imposing the penalty was absent in reassessment proceedings, the levy could not be sustained. The rule of double jeopardy was also held to be inapplicable in tax penalty matters, but that did not assist the revenue because the decisive point was the statutory scope of the penalty provision.
Conclusion: The penalty could not validly be imposed on the basis of reassessment proceedings; the answer was against the revenue and in favour of the assessees.
Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for failure to furnish an advance-tax estimate is sustainable only when imposed in connection with a regular assessment, and not on the basis of reassessment proceedings.