1982 (11) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....73 and the income-tax assessed on the basis of that return was more than Rs. 500. The petitioner deposited the income-tax within 30 days from the date of the filing of the return. But the petitioner failed to deposit the tax within the time given and because of this the ITO proceeded to penalise the petitioner u/s. 140A(3) of the I.T. Act, vide his show-cause notice No Penl. /73-74, etc. He imposed penalty of Rs. 110 on the petitioner. It has been urged in this petition that s. 140A(3) of the I.T. Act of 1961 was ultra vires art. 19 of the Constitution of India as the power to levy the penalty for non-payment of tax was confiscatory in nature and as such violative of art. 19 of the Constitution. Moreover, the power to levy penalty for no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l and, therefore, must be followed by this court in disposing of this case. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has referred the court to a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kashi Ram v. ITO [1977] 107 ITR 825. I have perused this judgment also. In this judgment the Andhra Pradesh High Court has at great length dealt with the above-referred judgment of the Madras High Court. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has come to the conclusion that it was not possible to agree with the conclusions arrived at in the judgment of the High Court at Madras. In the Andhra Pradesh case also, the petitioner had challenged the constitutional validity of s. 140A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, empowering the levy of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any manner whatsoever art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that where the constitutionality of a certain provision of law or an Act was taken as a ground, the initial presumption should be that the relevant provision of law or the Act was constitutional. It is for the challenger to make out a clear case of excess of jurisdiction, the burden is a very heavy one. The section itself is very clear. It is not obnoxious. It gives time for payment of arrears. After all when once a person is assessed to tax he must and should pay the same within the time given. In a way, by non-payment of tax assessed, the assessee may be said to be misappropriating the money that belonged to the State. The argument of the learned couns....