1991 PLP 155 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus SOCIETY HOSIERY FACTORY
| Citation | 1991 PLP 155 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab and Haryana High Court (India) |
| Bench Members | Gokal Chand Mital and S.S. Sodhi, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus SOCIETY HOSIERY FACTORY |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 155 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 155 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court (India) bench comprising: Gokal Chand Mital and S.S. Sodhi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 155 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus SOCIETY HOSIERY FACTORY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Jurisdiction to impose penalty
IAC is competent to pass order of penalty after 1-4-1976 in relation to assessment year 1973-74: Held, that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was legally competent to pass the order of penalty after April 1, 1976 in respect of the assessment year 1973-74. CIT v. Mohinder Lai (1987) 168 ITR 101 (P & H) fol. CIT v. Mela Ram Jagdish Raj & Co. (1981) 132 ITR 897 (P & H) ref. Ashok Bhan and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner.
Judgment & Decree
S.S. SODHI, J.
The question of law referred for the opinion of this Court is as under:-- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was not legally competent to pass the penalty order after April 1, 1976?" The matter raised here is covered by the reasoning as set forth in the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Mela Ram Jagdish Raj & Co. (1981) 132 ITR 897, which was later affirmed by the Full Bunch of this Court in CIT v. Mohinder Lal (1987) 168 ITR
101. Following these judgments, the reference is answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Z.S./800/T Order accordingly.