1999 PLP 2114 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus Late S.M. SYED MUHAMMAD and others
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2114 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 226 I T R 824 |
| Bench Members | V. V. Kamat, P.A. Mohammed and P. Shanmugam, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus Late S.M. SYED MUHAMMAD and others |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2114 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2114 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 226 I T R 824 bench comprising: V. V. Kamat, P.A. Mohammed and P. Shanmugam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2114 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus Late S.M. SYED MUHAMMAD and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner.
- T.M. Sreedharan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Certificate of fitness
Jurisdic tion
Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
Reference made by ITO on 31-3-1976--Received by IAC on 1-4-1976
Change of law w.e.f. 1-4-1976- Whether reference valid
Whether IAC had jurisdiction to levy penalty=- Question fit for appeal to Supreme Court
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.261 &
274. On March 30, 1976, the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on the assessee and simultaneously issued an order of initiation of penalty proceedings. On the same day, the assessee was intimated of the steps taken. On the next day, March 31, 1976, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was intimated by correspondence in the form of a letter. The said communication reached the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 1, 1976. On the same day, the statutory provision requiring reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner came to be deleted. A Full Bench of the High Court, on a reference, ' held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy penalty. [See (1995) 216 ITR 331 (Ker.)]. On an application for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court: Held, allowing the application, that whether the proceedings of penalty could be said to be a pending matter before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under the circumstances and consequently whether he would have the necessary powers and/or jurisdiction to continue to act on the basis of the reference were substantial questions of public importance, fit for appeal to the Supreme Court, CIT v. Late S.M. Syed Muhammad (1995) 216 ITR 331 (Ker.) ref.
Judgment & Decree
V.V. KAMAT, J.
This is an application by the Revenue under section 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court. On hearing learned counsel for the Revenue as well as for the assessee and considering the judgment in regard to which the petition is made before us, we feel that this is a fit case for an appeal to the Supreme Court of India. The crucial question is as to whether on the facts which are crystallised both in the majority judgment as well as in the minority judgment, it could be said that there was a valid reference under section 274(2) to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The majority judgment as well as the minority judgment considered the question differently on, the basis of decisions cited and considered (CIT v. Late S.M. Syed Muhammad (1995) 216 ITR 331 (Ker) (FB)). The necessary final facts for considering the application of the provisions of section 274(2) of the Act would be that on March 30, 1976, the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment and simultaneously issued orders of initiation of penalty proceedings. On the same day, the assessee was communicated the steps taken as above. On the next day (March 31. 1976), the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was communicated by correspondence in the form of a letter. The said communication had reached the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 1, 1976. On the same day (April 1, 1976), the statutory provision requiring the reference came to be deleted. In the light of this factual matrix, two divergent views require consideration and the question is a substantial question of public importance because it will determine as to whether the proceedings of penalty could be said to be a pending matter before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under the above circumstances and consequently whether he would be having the necessary powers and/or jurisdiction to continue to act on the basis of the reference as above. We grant the necessary certificate under section 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the above reasons and circumstances. M.B.A./1963/FC Order accordingly.