M/S. GUDUTHUR BROS. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , SPECIAL CIRCLE, BANGALORE

CIVIL APPEAL No. 261/1958Supreme Court[1961] 1 S.C.R. 7122 July 1960Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: S.K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH BROS.4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Guduthur Bros., failed to file their income tax return for assessment year 1948-49. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued a show cause notice under Section 28(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee filed a written reply, but the ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 16,000 without affording them a hearing, as required by Section 28(3). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) set aside the penalty order due to this procedural defect and directed a refund. Subsequently, the ITO issued a fresh notice offering a hearing. The assessee objected, arguing that the ITO lacked jurisdiction to proceed without an express remand order from the AAC.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that where an order imposing a penalty under Section 28(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was vitiated by an illegality that occurred during the course of proceedings (specifically, the denial of a reasonable opportunity of being heard as required by Section 28(3)), and the order was vacated on appeal, the Income Tax Officer was well within his jurisdiction to continue the proceedings from the stage at which the illegality had occurred. The Court reasoned that the AAC's order, by vacating the penalty and directing a refund due to the procedural defect, implicitly permitted the ITO to correct the error and proceed with the assessment of penalty. The Court rejected the contention that an express order of remand was necessary, stating that the original show cause notice remained operative and the subsequent proceedings could be considered as part of the assessment proceedings, relating back to the initial notice. The Court distinguished the case from Jos Chacko Poothokaran v. Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam Circle.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Officer has the jurisdiction to continue penalty proceedings from the stage where an illegality occurred, after the penalty order was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, without an express order of remand. (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the AAC's order had become final, and without an express order of remand, the ITO could no longer proceed to re-assess the penalty. They relied on the principle that once an order becomes final, the authority cannot revisit it unless specifically directed to do so. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the AAC's order, by setting aside the penalty due to a procedural illegality that occurred during the proceedings, implicitly allowed the ITO to continue the proceedings from the stage where the illegality supervened. They argued that no express remand was necessary for the ITO to rectify the procedural defect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 28(1)(a),Section 28(3),Section 33

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

• 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 71 . charge against a police officer above the rank of a con- stable under the Police Act and such a magistrate has to 'be a )!'irst Class Magistrate. These sections no- where. exclude departmental enquiry. All that they lay down is that where. an offence punishable under the Police Act is committed by a police officer above the ra,nk of a constable and is to be tried by a court oflaw it has to go before a :First Class Magistrate. That, however, does not mean that no departmentalenqu\iry can be held with respect to a matter where it is afiio possible· to prosecute a police officer under the Police . Act. There is no force in this contention also and it i~ hereby rejected. · ;:

The appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed) but in the circumstances of this case we pass no ordef' as to costs. ' · Appeal dismissed. M/s. GUDUTHUR BROS. v. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL . CIRCLE, BANGALORE. / (S. K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. c. SHAH, JJ.) Income-tax-Assessment-Penalty-Imposition, 'by Income-tax Officer without reason.al!le opportunity given to assessee of being heard-Order set -aside on appeal and refund directed-No

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 33

All 65 judgments and leading authorities on Section 33 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →