2001 PLP 2470 (PTD)
INCOME-TAX OFFICER and another Versus A.M.S. SALI MARICAR
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2470 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 247 I T R 808 |
| Bench Members | B. P. Jeevan Reddy and K. S. Paripoornan, JJ |
| Parties | INCOME-TAX OFFICER and another Versus A.M.S. SALI MARICAR |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2470 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2470 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 247 I T R 808 bench comprising: B. P. Jeevan Reddy and K. S. Paripoornan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2470 (PTD) (INCOME-TAX OFFICER and another Versus A.M.S. SALI MARICAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate (Anil Srivastava and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellants.
- A.T.M. Sampath, Advocate for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeals from the judgment and order, dated December 6, 1972 of the Madras High Court in W.Ps. Nos.594 and 595 of 1970).
Self-assessment-: -Non-payment of tax
Not confiscatory-- Valid
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 140A(3)
Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(f)
[A. M. Sali Maricar v. I.T.O. (1973) 90 ITR 116 reversed]. Subsection (3) of section 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provided for penalty for non-payment of tax on self-assessment, does not infringe Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. A.M. Sali Maricar v. I.T.O. (1973) 90 ITR 116 reversed. Kashiram v. ITO (1977) 107 ITR 825 (AP); K. Sampangirama Raju v. ITO (Fifth) (1988) 173 ITR 609 (Kar.); CIT v. J. Pitambardas & Co. (1995) 216 ITR 172 (Bom.) and Mary Issac v. IAC (1987) 163 ITR 341 (Ker.) approved.
Judgment & Decree
(Appeals from the judgment and order, dated December 6, 1972 of the Madras High Court in W.Ps. Nos.594 and 595 of 1970). ‑‑‑‑Self‑assessment‑: ‑Non‑payment of tax‑‑‑Penalty‑‑‑Not confiscatory‑‑ Valid‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 140A(3)‑‑‑Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(f)‑‑‑[A. M. Sali Maricar v. I.T.O. (1973) 90 ITR 116 reversed]. Subsection (3) of section 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provided for penalty for non‑payment of tax on self‑assessment, does not infringe Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. A.M. Sali Maricar v. I.T.O. (1973) 90 ITR 116 reversed. Kashiram v. ITO (1977) 107 ITR 825 (AP); K. Sampangirama Raju v. ITO (Fifth) (1988) 173 ITR 609 (Kar.); CIT v. J. Pitambardas & Co. (1995) 216 ITR 172 (Bom.) and Mary Issac v. IAC (1987) 163 ITR 341 (Ker.) approved. Dr. R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate (Anil Srivastava and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellants. A.T.M. Sampath, Advocate for Respondent. These appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the judgment of the Madras High Court (see (1973) 90 ITR 116), declaring subsection (3) of section 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as void on the ground that it is violative of Article 19(1)(t) of the Constitution of India. The said judgment has been disagreed to by almost all the High Courts in the country' including the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kashiram v. ITO (1977) 107 ITR 825, the Karnataka High Court in K. Sampangirama Raju v. (Fifth) ITO (1988) 173 ITR 609, the Bombay High Court in CIT v. J. Pitambardas & Co. (1995) 216 ITR 172 and the Kerala High Court in Mary Issac v. IAC (1987) 163 ITR
341. We agree with the reasoning given by the Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Bombay and the Kerala High Courts and disagree with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at in the judgment under appeal. Since the provision has been repealed long ago, we do not think it necessary to say more on the subject except to say that these appeals are allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. No costs. M.B.A./1000/FC Appeals allowed.