TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1957 (9) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 1953-54 dated February 16, 1955, (Exhibit C) and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, in I.T.R. No. 327/55 dated October, 10, 1955, (Exhibit D). The first respondent is the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, and the second, the First Additional Income Tax Officer, Kozhikode. 2. In Exhibit B, an order under section 28(1)(a) and (b) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, the second respondent said: A clear case of deliberate default exists in this case. With the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore, I levy a penalty of Rs. 1,300. This should be paid on or before December 30, 1953. 3. The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment year 1951-52. There are no fresh facts for me to interfere in revision. The petition fails. (Exhibit D). 5. Section 28 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, makes provision, in the words of Kanga, for the imposition of a penalty on contumacious or fraudulent assessee. Sub-section (1) of that section (omitting the proviso thereto) is in the following terms: If the Income Tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal, in the court of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person - (a) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of his total income which he was required to furnish by notice given under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 22 or sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee has neither filed a valid return nor has he respondent to notice under section 22(4). He is liable to penalty. Issue notice under section 28(1)(a). Issued order under section 23(4). This shows that the Income Tax Officer was satisfied in the course of proceedings and not subsequent thereto. The fact that Exhibit B is of November 30, 1953, is immaterial and cannot affect the question. 8. In Guru Prosad Shaw v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gentle, J., said: All that section 28 requires is that there should be a discovery and the person discovering it is satisfied that an assessee had concealed particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars, in the course of any proceedings under the Income Tax Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lows: The Calcutta High Court has held that even the notice under sub-section (3) may be issued and the penalty proceedings may be started by the Income Tax Officer after the assessment is completed, and that it is not necessary that the penalty proceedings should be started during the pendency of those proceedings in the course of which the default of the assessee is discovered. The contrary view taken by the Lahore High Court in Banarsi Das v. Commissioner of Income Tax is, it is submitted, incorrect. 10. Sub-section (3) of section 28 provides: No order shall be made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) unless the assessee or partner, as the case may be, has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he penalty notice as a copy is not available on file. (Exhibit C). The reply of the Income Tax Officer is Exhibit G dated September 13, 1956: With reference to your above letter I am to inform you that I am unable to give a copy of the penalty notice, as a copy is not available on file. 12. That the petitioner did receive notice under section 28(3) will be clear from Exhibit I dated January 18, 1952, and Exhibit II dated February 6, 1952, letters of the petitioner to the First Additional Income Tax Officer, Kozhikode. Exhibit I reads as follows: Your notice under section 28(3) for imposing penalty. I was shocked to get a notice under the above section, which was redirected to me by my brother two days back. ....