1954 (9) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e hearing of the appeal the assesses made payments of the tax from 28-12-1949, up to 20-3-1950. 3. The total amount of payment made by the assessee was ₹ 13000. On 10-8-1950, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal. But the assessee took an appeal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. While this appeal was pending, the Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty of ₹ 3500 upon the assessee under Section 46(1), Income-tax Act, for failure to pay the entire amount of assessment for 1948-49. Against this order of penalty the assessee brought an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 4. The appeal was presented on 5-2-1951, but ft was not admitted by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was confirmed. 7. In these circumstances the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has submitted the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court: "Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the appeal preferred on 5-2-51 by the assesses against the penalty imposed under Section 46(1) of the Act was competent?" 8. On behalf of the assessee Mr. Dutt put forward the argument that the appeal preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the order under Section 46(1) was competent since, the amount of tax had been fully paid on 24-4-1952. 9. The argument put forward by learned counsel was that the crucial date for paying the amount of tax was not the date of pre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Legislature contemplated that no appeal shall be presented against an order under Sub-section (1) of Section 46 unless the tax has been paid, there appears to be no reason why the Legislature, did not use apt language to that effect. We, therefore, see no justification for the argument advanced by Mr. Bahadur that the first proviso of Section 30(1) should be interpreted to mean that an appeal shall not be presented against an order under Sub-section (1) of Section 46 unless the tax has been paid previously. 12. Our view is also supported by the definition of the word 'lie', in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 1, page 1137. The definition states : "Lie --- (Chiefly in law) of an action, charge, claim, etc., to be ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n attachment against a person not a party to the action, for contempt of court was a "criminal case or matter" within the meaning of Section 47 of the Judicature Act, and no appeal from an order made upon such an application can be heard by the court of appeal. These authorities support to some extent the view that, we take as to interpretation of the first proviso of Section 30(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 13. In the course of his argument Mr. Bahadur referred to form I prescribed by Rule 21 of the Rules framed by the Central Board of Revenue under Section 59 of the Income-tax Act. Paragraph 3 of this form states: "The tax due in respect of the assessment for the assessment year has already been paid." 14. Mr. Bah....