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 proceedings initiated under section 297(2)(g) read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for an assessment year ending before 1 April 1962 are unconstitutional or without jurisdiction as offending Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The old Act treated concealment penalties and criminal prosecutions as distinct matters, and the new Act preserved that distinction, though it permitted pending penalty matters relating to earlier assessment years to be initiated and imposed under the 1961 Act. The provision for penalty by income-tax authorities is an administrative fiscal sanction for breach of statutory duty and is not the same as a conviction and punishment for an offence in a criminal court. Article 20(1) protects against conviction for an offence and against a greater punishment for such offence, but it does not extend to a revenue penalty imposed in assessment or penalty proceedings of this character.
Conclusion: The penalty notice was valid and Article 20(1) was not attracted. The contention that the proceedings lacked jurisdiction failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal penalty imposed by income-tax authorities for concealment is not a conviction or punishment for an offence within Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, and section 297(2)(g) read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 validly authorises such proceedings for earlier assessment years.