Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sujatha Industries - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Referred Case No. 110 of 1982
Judge
Reported in(1987)60CTR(Kar)75; [1987]163ITR263(KAR); [1987]163ITR263(Karn); [1986]26TAXMAN449(Kar)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 271(1) and 274(2)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentSujatha Industries
Appellant AdvocateH. Raghavendra Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateG. Sarangan, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....by management under section 33(2)(b) of act - domestic enquiry against workman was set aside by tribunal and parties were directed to prove their respective case by leading evidence thus in said proceeding tribunal decided issue of misconduct of workman on merits and accordingly permitted his dismissal said dismissal thereafter challenged by workman under section 10 - held, issue of misconduct as decided earlier is substantive one and cannot be treated s incidental. findings of proceeding under section 33 having not been challenged, attained finality. same can neither be ignored nor be tried in a subsequent proceeding under section 10. principle of res judicata attracted. section 11 r/w explanation 8: [s.r. bannurmath & a.n. venugopala gowda, jj] res judicata held, section 11..........the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal is right in law in cancelling the penalty levied by the inspecting assistant commissioner under section 271(1)(c) holding that the inspecting assistant commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) in view of the changed provisions of law ?' 3. the matter relates to levy of penalty for the assessment year 1971-72. the penalty was levied by the inspecting assistant commissioner under section 271(1) of the income-tax act. he levied a penalty of rs. 15,187. the said order was challenged in an appeal. the tribunal held that the assessment order was passed on january 27, 1976, and the penalty proceeding was referred to the inspecting assistant commissioner on the same day, but the penalty was levied on.....
Judgment:

Jagannatha Shetty, J.

1.This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. At the instance of the Department, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the penalty levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) in view of the changed provisions of law ?'

3. The matter relates to levy of penalty for the assessment year 1971-72. The penalty was levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act. He levied a penalty of Rs. 15,187. The said order was challenged in an appeal. The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed on January 27, 1976, and the penalty proceeding was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on the same day, but the penalty was levied on April 18, 1979, i.e., after the amendment to section 274(2) of the Act came into force and, therefore, the assessment order was without authority.

4. The Tribunal has followed the judgment of this court in R. Abdul Azeez v. CIT : [1981]128ITR547(KAR) . There is no dispute that the question referred to this court is also covered by the decision in R. Abdul Azeez's case.

5. Following the said decision, we, answer the question in the affirmative and against the Department. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.

6. Order on oral application. - It is stated that the decision of Abdul Azeez's case : [1981]128ITR547(KAR) is pending consideration before the Supreme Court upon certificate granted by this court. We, therefore, grant a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //