TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (6) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : RANGE : 'AF' : CALCUTTA ------- &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(3) Date of hearing: 28-12-1972 Present for appellant : Sri 1. C. Sancheti, Advocate. APPELLATE ORDER AND GROUND OF DECISION. The present appeal is against the I.T. assessment order for the assessment year 1967-68 passed by the ITO, E-Ward/HC/Cal. on 31-1-72. 2. At the time of appeal hearing, the objection was taken to the disallowance of general expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,000. Before me it was stated that for the earlier years also there was a disallowance of Rs, 2,500 made by the ITO and the AAC allowed a relief of Rs. 1,000. Keeping the circumstance in view, I reduce the disallowance to Rs. 1,000. The appellant gets a relief of Rs. 1,000 in this regard. 3. The next ground regarding bad debt was not pressed by the represent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod 1968-69, the payment of advance income-tax was made on 5th March, 1968, the payment being Rs. 1,254. For the period 1969-70, the advance tax of Rs. 3,564 was paid in two instalments, first on 7th December, 1968, and the last one on 13th March, 1969. For the assessment year 1967-68 the petitioner furnished its income-tax return on 10th July, 1967, showing its income at Rs. 69, 751.47. Thereafter, the petitioner found certain discrepancies in the computation of its income and the petitioner furnished " duplicate revised return " on 5th January, 1970, under s. 139(5) of the said Act and on the basis of the said revised return the petitioner paid further tax of Rs. 1, I 00 on 19th January, 1972, under s. 140A of the Act. For the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to that extent. The order portion of that order, according to me, is to be affirmed, because, in my opinion, the argument advanced by Mr. Roy Chowdhury that s. 139(1) is ultra vires art. 14 of the Constitution of India is misconceived. Mr. Roy Chowdhury relied upon the two cases in support of his contention. The case, M. Nagappa v. ITO [1975] 99 ITR 32 (Kar) was affirmed in the case in Addl. CIT v. Mahadeshwara Lorry Service [1981] 129 ITR 516 (Kar). It is argued by Mr. Roy Chowdhury that under s. 139(1) proviso, cl. (iii)(a), the equation of registered firm and unregistered firm is ultra vires art. 14 of the Constitution. The case as hereinbefore stated supports Mr. Roy Chowdhury's contention but with due respect to the Hon'ble judges of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntages. It was, however, open to the Legislature to say that once a registered firm committed a default attracting penalty, it should be deemed or considered to be an unregistered firm for the purpose of its imposition. No question of discrimination under article 14 can arise in such a situation. I respectfully disagree with the view of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court to the effect that the distinction made by the Hon'ble judges of the Supreme Court does not apply. On the other hand, in my opinion, for the delay in filing the return, the registered firm by the operation of law has to pay the same penalty as an unregistered firm has to pay. It is open to the Legislature as it has been stated that once the registered firm comm....