1964 (3) TMI 113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... JUDGMENT Narasimham C.J.- This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, made by the Income-tax Tribunal, Patna, referring the following question for the opinion of this court: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 28(1)(c) of the Incom?-tax Act, 1922, on January 31, 1958, in re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anuary 31, 1958. It should be further noted that the assessee did not file any appeal against the order of assessment dated October, 31, 1950, which became therefore final long before the penalty proceedings were disposed of. The learned Tribunal held that there was unconscionable delay in passing order on the penalty proceedings. It relied on some observations in Mohd. Atiq v. Income-tax Offic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....observed that as penalty proceedings were in the nature of criminal or quasi criminal proceedings such proceedings should be taken within a reasonable time and the delay of 14 years (which was found to have taken place in that case) was not only unreasonable but fantastic. But the learned judge did not say that merely on the ground of unreasonable delay the order of penalty would be bad. On the ot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not be inferred merely on account of unreasonable delay. Once it is conceded that in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (which provides for special rules of limitations for the various proceedings under that Act) there is no express provision pres?ribing the period within which an order of penalty should be passed, no such order can be held to be bad in law merely because of the inordinate delay. Mr.....