Skip to content


Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Swastik Mineral Corporation - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 439 of 1973
Judge
Reported inAIR1977SC2194; [1979]118ITR583(SC); (1977)4SCC606d; 1977(9)LC486(SC)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 256(2) and 271
AppellantAddl. Commissioner of Income-tax
RespondentSwastik Mineral Corporation
Excerpt:
.....made for issuing direction to income-tax appellate tribunal to refer certain question of law to high court - amendments made by act 5 of 1964 to section 271 of act of 1961 have been ignored by tribunal but facts and circumstances of case do not warrant reference to high court. - indian penal code, 1890 sections 300 & 304 part i: [dr. arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly, jj] murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder - distinction between held, the academic distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder has always vexed the courts. the confusion is caused, if courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. the safest way of approach to..........mr. ahuja's submission on behalf of the appellant, that the tribunal appears to have overlooked the amendment made by act 5 of 1964 to section 271 of the income tax act, 1961. the word 'deliberately', which occurred in the unamended section was omitted by the amendment and an explanation was added to that section which was previously not there. these amendments, undoubtedly, ought to have been considered by the tribunal, but taking an overall view of the matter we are unable to agree that this is a fit case for asking the tribunal to make a reference to the high court. we would only like to add that the circumstance that we are dismissing this appeal, shall not be construed as our approval of the tribunal's judgment.3. the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Judgment:

Y.V. Chandrachud, J.

1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated March 2, 1972 rejecting an application filed by the appellant, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad, under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asking that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal be directed to refer a certain question of law to the High Court.

2. The Tribunal has set aside the penalty of Rs. 7,500/- levied on the assessee by the Income tax Officer and confirmed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, following a judgment of this Court in CIT v. Anwar Ali : [1970]76ITR696(SC) ,. We see the plausibility of Mr. Ahuja's submission on behalf of the appellant, that the Tribunal appears to have overlooked the amendment made by Act 5 of 1964 to Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The word 'deliberately', which occurred in the unamended section was omitted by the amendment and an explanation was added to that section which was previously not there. These amendments, undoubtedly, ought to have been considered by the Tribunal, but taking an overall view of the matter we are unable to agree that this is a fit case for asking the Tribunal to make a reference to the High Court. We would only like to add that the circumstance that we are dismissing this appeal, shall not be construed as our approval of the Tribunal's judgment.

3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.


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