https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176540 Penalty under the Income-tax Act, 1922 was considered available in reassessment proceedings where the default related to the original assessment. Section 28 was read as authorising penalty when, in the course of proceedings under the Act, the authority is satisfied that the assessee failed to furnish a return, failed to comply with notices, or concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Section 34 reopening was treated as part of the assessment machinery for the same assessee and assessment period, and not as a proceeding that excludes penalty jurisdiction merely because the default arose earlier. The stated conclusion was that penalty could validly be imposed and the matter favoured the Revenue. en-us Wed, 01 Jul 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:47:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176540 Penalty under the Income-tax Act, 1922 was considered available in reassessment proceedings where the default related to the original assessment. Section 28 was read as authorising penalty when, in the course of proceedings under the Act, the authority is satisfied that the assessee failed to furnish a return, failed to comply with notices, or concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Section 34 reopening was treated as part of the assessment machinery for the same assessee and assessment period, and not as a proceeding that excludes penalty jurisdiction merely because the default arose earlier. The stated conclusion was that penalty could validly be imposed and the matter favoured the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 01 Jul 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176540