https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290160 Section 28(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was held to impose an explicit and mandatory requirement of a hearing, or at least a real opportunity of being heard, before penalty action could be taken. A mere option to file a written explanation or appear in person was not enough, and the differing wording of related procedural provisions showed that the Legislature intended distinct safeguards in different contexts. Because no proper hearing or reasonable opportunity was afforded, the notice failed to satisfy the statutory condition and the penalty order was treated as ultra vires and liable to be set aside. en-us Mon, 13 Sep 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Sep 2020 14:20:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290160 Section 28(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was held to impose an explicit and mandatory requirement of a hearing, or at least a real opportunity of being heard, before penalty action could be taken. A mere option to file a written explanation or appear in person was not enough, and the differing wording of related procedural provisions showed that the Legislature intended distinct safeguards in different contexts. Because no proper hearing or reasonable opportunity was afforded, the notice failed to satisfy the statutory condition and the penalty order was treated as ultra vires and liable to be set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 13 Sep 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290160