https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9345 Penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 could not be sustained where it was imposed after an unexplained delay of more than 20 years. Although the Act prescribed no express limitation period, the power to levy penalty had to be exercised within a reasonable time, and a lapse far beyond that standard was held improper and vulnerable. The Department's reliance on other proceedings did not justify the delay on the facts of this case, and the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty for want of reasonable cause. The questions referred were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. en-us Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9345 Penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 could not be sustained where it was imposed after an unexplained delay of more than 20 years. Although the Act prescribed no express limitation period, the power to levy penalty had to be exercised within a reasonable time, and a lapse far beyond that standard was held improper and vulnerable. The Department's reliance on other proceedings did not justify the delay on the facts of this case, and the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty for want of reasonable cause. The questions referred were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9345