Successor tax officer may impose penalty without rehearing when written objections were filed and no fresh hearing was sought.

A successor Income-tax Officer may complete penalty proceedings without granting a fresh oral hearing where the assessee has already filed a written objection and has not asked for rehearing after the transfer of the officer. The text states that the material before the successor was the written representation alone, with no established oral submission after commencement of the proceedings. On that basis, the requirements of sections 28(3) and 5(7C) were treated as satisfied, and a fresh opportunity of being heard was not mandatory. The stated ratio is that, in such circumstances, the successor officer can decide the penalty matter on the existing record.

---

---

Issues: Whether the successor Income-tax Officer could levy penalty without giving the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard when the assessee had already submitted a written representation and had made no request for rehearing.

Analysis: The assessee filed a written objection in the penalty proceedings before the officer who was later transferred. The record did not establish any oral representation after commencement of the penalty proceedings. On the successor officer taking up the matter, the only material before him was the written representation, and the assessee did not seek reopening of the proceedings or a further hearing. In these circumstances, the requirements of sections 28(3) and 5(7C) stood satisfied, and no fresh hearing was mandatory.

Conclusion: The successor Income-tax Officer was competent to impose the penalty without granting a fresh opportunity of being heard, and the answer was against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a penalty proceeding has been met by a written representation and no request is made for a fresh hearing after transfer of the assessing officer, the successor officer may proceed to decide the matter without rehearing the assessee.

---