1961 (9) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tax authorities claiming the tax has been admitted by the official liquidator. There were four assessment years. For the year 1951-52, penalty order was passed by the Income-tax Officer on 25th November, 1952, imposing a penalty of ₹ 12,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated 5th March, 1954, reduced the penalty to ₹ 6,500. There was no appeal from this order by the assessee. With regard to the assessment for the year 1952-53, penalty order of ₹ 2,000 was passed y the Income-tax Officer on 3rd April, 1954, and this was not challenged in appeal. For the assessment year 1953-54, penalty order was passed on 23rd August, 1954, imposing a penalty of ₹ 4,000. This order was not challenged in appeal. F....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not apply to a proof for assessed taxes. This English case was also followed in Dinshaw & Co. v. Income-tax Officer, Lucknow ([1941] 9 I. T. R. 215 ; 11 Comp. Cas. 107). Similar view was held by a bench of this court in Janda Rubber Works Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Salaries Section ([1950] 18 I. T. R. 951). In the last mentioned case there was also a reference to the case of Governor-General in Council v. Sargodha Trading Co. Ltd.( [1943] 11 I. T. R. 368), where a full bench of the Lahore High Court had expressed the view that the English case in In re Calvert was not a good authority to be followed by courts in India. The division bench of this court did not express agreement with the view of the full bench of Lahore. It was held that whe....