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 prior approval obtained from the Additional Commissioner satisfied the requirement of prior approval of the Joint Commissioner for imposing penalty under Sections 271D and 271E of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis: The statutory definition of "Joint Commissioner" in Section 2(28C) expressly includes an Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. The requirement in Section 274(2) must therefore be read in light of that inclusive definition unless the context clearly excludes it. The Court found no such repugnancy or contrary context in Section 274(2). A harmonious construction of the provisions was necessary so that the definition clause is given effect and not rendered redundant. The references in other provisions to both authorities by name did not cut down the inclusive definition for the purpose of Section 274(2).
Conclusion: Prior approval by the Additional Commissioner was held to be valid compliance with Section 274(2), and the challenge to the penalty proceedings failed.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were dismissed, while leaving the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: An inclusive statutory definition of "Joint Commissioner" must be applied to a provision requiring prior approval of the Joint Commissioner unless the context clearly excludes the Additional Commissioner.