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 under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 could validly be imposed on the assessee after the Hindu undivided family had disrupted, and whether the penalty proceedings could be sustained when the income alleged to have been concealed belonged to the erstwhile family.
Analysis: The assessment records showed that the income in question belonged to the Hindu undivided family and that, if penalty proceedings were maintainable at all, they could lie only against that family. The family had been in existence when the proceedings were initiated, but it had ceased to exist before the penalty order was passed. Penalty under section 28 is a penal proceeding directed against the person responsible for the concealment, and the law does not contemplate imposing a vicarious penalty on a person other than the one liable for the default. The principle that the personality of a disrupted Hindu undivided family may continue for certain reassessment proceedings did not extend to penalty proceedings of this character.
Conclusion: The penalty was not valid in law and the answer was in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 cannot be imposed on a Hindu undivided family or its karta after the family has ceased to exist, because penal liability must attach to the person in existence who is responsible for the default.