Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. NaraIn Kaur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 28 of 1966
Judge
Reported in[1970]76ITR662(P& H)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 18A(3), 212(3), 256(1), 273 and 297(2)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentSmt. NaraIn Kaur
Appellant Advocate D.N. Awasthy and; B.S. Gupta, Advs.
Respondent Advocate Roop Chand, Adv.
Cases ReferredJain Brothers v. Union of India
Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the..........under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, must be answered in favour of the revenue, in view of the decision of the supreme court in jain brothers v. union of india, [1969] 74 i.t.r. (sh. n.) 18 (civil appeal no. 1593 of 1069, decided on the 18th of november, 1969).2. in view of the rule laid down as to the powers of this court to issue directions in the decision of the supreme court in commissioner of income-tax v. jubilee mitts ltd.,[1968] 68 i.t.r. 630 we direct the tribunal to examine the feasibility of imposing a penalty after examining the merits of the case and also the fact that in the case of a central minister, in similar circumstances, the penalty was waived. we see no reason why a citizen should be treated differently than a minister. there will be no order as to.....
Judgment:

1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must be answered in favour of the revenue, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jain Brothers v. Union of India, [1969] 74 I.T.R. (Sh. N.) 18 (Civil Appeal No. 1593 of 1069, decided on the 18th of November, 1969).

2. In view of the rule laid down as to the powers of this court to issue directions in the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jubilee Mitts Ltd.,[1968] 68 I.T.R. 630 we direct the Tribunal to examine the feasibility of imposing a penalty after examining the merits of the case and also the fact that in the case of a Central Minister, in similar circumstances, the penalty was waived. We see no reason why a citizen should be treated differently than a Minister. There will be no order as to costs.


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