Skip to content


W. K. Sreenivasalu Naidu Vs. Collector of Madras, and Another. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petitions Nos. 265 to 267 of 1958
Reported in[1958]34ITR301(Mad)
AppellantW. K. Sreenivasalu Naidu
RespondentCollector of Madras, and Another.
Excerpt:
.....otal..........contended that there had been no concealment of income in any manner. nevertheless, the income-tax officer levied penalties amounting to rs. 2,090 for 1951-52, rs. 1,715 for 1952-53 and rs. 370 for 1953-54. the petitioner appealed to the appellate assistant commissioner of income-tax who dismissed it by an order made on 7th november, 1957. thereafter, the income-tax officer issued a certificate to the collector of madras under section 46(2) of the income-tax act for recovery of the penalties as if they were arrears of land revenue. the collector of madras thereupon issued a notices to the petitioner under section 4 of madras act vi of 1867, notifying that in default of payment, his properties, moveable and immoveable, would be appropriate writs to restrain the collector or madras from.....
Judgment:
ORDER

In July 1953 the petitioner voluntarily filed returns of income for the six years 1948-49 to 1953-54 before the II Additional Income-tax Officer, Fourth Circle, Madras. On various dates in January, April and June, 1956, the Income-tax Officer made assessments in respect of the income for the years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54. He also issued notices to the petitioner to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him for his failure to submit a true estimate of his income for each of the years under section 18A of the Act. The petitioner made his representations to the Income-tax Officer and contended that there had been no concealment of income in any manner. Nevertheless, the Income-tax Officer levied penalties amounting to Rs. 2,090 for 1951-52, Rs. 1,715 for 1952-53 and Rs. 370 for 1953-54. The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax who dismissed it by an order made on 7th November, 1957. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer issued a certificate to the Collector of Madras under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act for recovery of the penalties as if they were arrears of land revenue. The Collector of Madras thereupon issued a notices to the petitioner under section 4 of Madras Act VI of 1867, notifying that in default of payment, his properties, moveable and immoveable, would be appropriate writs to restrain the Collector or Madras from enforcing and acting on the certificate issued by the Income-tax Officer.

Sub-section (9) of section 18A of the Income-tax Act provides :

'If the Income-tax Officer, in the course of any proceedings in connection with the regular assessment, is satisfied that any assessee -

(A) has furnished under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) estimates of the tax payable by him which he knew or had reason to believe to be untrue, or

(b) has without reasonable cause failed to comply with the provisions of sub-section (3), the assessee shall be deemed, in the case referred to in clause (a), to have deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of his income, and in the case referred to in clause (b), to have failed to furnish the return of his total income; and the provisions of section 28, so far as may be, shall apply accordingly :

Provided that the amount of penalty levied shall, in the case referred to in clause (a), be a sum not exceeding one and a half times the amount by which the tax actually paid during the year under the provisions of this section falls short of the tax that should have been paid by the assessee under sub-section (1) or eighty per cent. of the tax determined on the basis of the regular assessment as modified in the manner provided in sub-section (6), whichever is the less, and in the case referred to in clause (b), one and a half times the said eighty per cent.'

Section 28 empowers the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal to impose a penalty where the assessee has concealed particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of his income.

Under section 47 any sum imposed by way of penalty under the provisions of section 28 may be recovered in the manner provided for the recovery of arrears of tax. Recovery by recourse to Madras Act VI of 1867 is one of the recognised modes of recovery.

The argument of Mr. Krishnamurthi Aiyar, the learned advocate for the petitioner, is this : Before the Income-tax Officer can call in aid the provisions of section 47, the penalty must have been levied under section 28. In the present case the penalty has been levied only under sub-section (9) of section 18A and not under section 28. Therefore, section 47 cannot be invoked. I am not prepared to accept this reasoning. Sub-section (9) specifically provides that 'the provisions of section 28, so far as may be, shall apply accordingly' to penalties levied under section 18A(9) a. The argument of Mr. Krishnamurthi Aiyar was that these words are sufficient only to attract the procedural portion of section 28 and no more. I am unable to agree.

As I read the section, these words are sufficient to attract all the provisions of section 28 so far as they can be made to apply. It follows that the penalties levied in this case can be collected under section 47.

These writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.


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