TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (7) TMI 174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,500 this year and Rs. 1,500 being the annuity refund receivable for this year. It was finally assessed at Rs. 1,36,131. On the completion of the assessment a notice under s. 271(1)(c) was issued to the assessee for omission of the items of Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 1,500 noted supra. In response to the above notice, the assessee filed a reply dt.28th March 1979. This reply dealt with only Rs. 1,500 and not the other omission of Rs. 2500. It was explained by the assessee here that though he had not disclosed any income on annuity refund (Rs. 1,500) that came to be assessed for this year, no penalty was leviable with regard to the same as the assessee had not received the said refund during the relevant previous year and had been under the impressio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot justified in doing so. 4. The Commissioner(A) found no merit in the above submission. According to him the explanation for the non-disclosure given out in first appeal was an afterthought. He noted that the assessee had inherited the property in question on the death of his father, some time in 1964 and that the assessee had applied to the Municipal Corporation for transfer of the property in his name in the Municipal records as far back as 1966; that the Municipality made the necessary entry in its records only in 1970 showing the assessee as the owner of the said property. In such a factual context the Commissioner (A) was of the view the assessee could not take the plea that he was not the owner of the property until 1970. He was in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat even the notional income from self-occupied property had to be returned for assessment. The ld. Counsel's argument was that the concept, ignorance of law could not be an excuse for a statutory default, was an outmoded one; that on the contrary no man is presumed to know the entire law of the country. Counsel supported this argument by relying on the decision in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. vs. State of U.P. (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC). We have seen the decision. That decision is certainly no authority for the proposition argued by the ld. Counsel. It must be remembered that the ratio of a decision cannot be torn out of its factual context. In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills an issue for decision was on when the doctrine of promissory estop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in its scope and ambit that the Court must necessarily hold that the appellant had knowledge of its right to exemption on the basis of promissory estoppel at the time when it sent the letter of 25th June, 1970. It was in the context of the discussion on this aspect fore knowledge of the doctrine of promissory estoppel that the Court pointed out that there was no presumption that "every person knows the law". It quoted with approval Maula J. (Martiudale vs. Falkner (1946) 2 CB 706) to the effect that it would be contrary to common sense and reason to presume that every person knows the law. It also noted the observations of Lord Atkin (Evans vs. Bartlam (1937) AC 473 who put the point in its properly context when he said "the facts it that ....