PRADIP LAMPS WORKS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are two appeals before us. In Civil Appeal No. 911 of 1977, two questions were referred under S.256(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of the High Court. The two questions are :

(2.) WHETHER , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding that the return of Income had been filed on February 6, 1961, i.e., within the period permissible under S.139(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the imposition of a penalty was justified as there was a delay for the purpose of S.271(1)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ?" Both the questions were answered by the High Court against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We see no error in the order of the High Court. 2. So far as the first question is concerned, the only contention of the assessee was that before a penalty order was passed by the successor Income tax Officer, no personal hearing was given to him. The Act does not make it obligatory upon the successor-Income tax Officer to give a personal hearing. In this case, the show-cause notice was issued on November 17, 1966. Even though a period of two years elapsed, no explanation or representation was made by the assessee, whereupon the order of penalty was passed on December 23, 1968. S.129 makes it clear that a successor Income tax Officer has jurisdiction to continue the proceedings from the stage at which the proceeding was left by his predecessor. The proviso, no doubt empowers the assessee to demand that before the proceeding is so continued, the previous proceeding or any part thereof be reopened or that before any order of assessment is passed against him, be reheard. But, in this case, it is not suggested that any such demand was made by the assessee. In such circumstances, the High Court was right in answering the question against the assessee.

(3.) NOW , coming to Civil Appeal No. 913 of 1977, the only question referred under S.256(2) is the following :