HULEKAR AND SONS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the assessment year 1957-58, the assessee filed a return of income on October 12, 1957, showing an Income of Rs. 14,143. On November 21, 1957, he declared, through a revised return, an additional income of Rs. 61,244. Thereafter, on February 25, 1959, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under sections 28(1)(c) and 28(3), for the imposition of a penalty for concealment. During the pendency of those proceedings, the assessee produced a statement on March 20, 1959.

(2.) THEREAFTER, the Income-tax Officer, who issued the notice under section 28, stood transferred and his successor made an order on December 15, 1961, imposing a penalty of Rs. 30,000. Before he did so, he did not again hear the assessee.

(3.) IN Shop Siddegowda and Family v. Commissioner of INcome-tax, this court expressed the view that where one INcome-tax Officer issues a notice under section 28(3), and the assessee submits his Explanation in writing, but does not choose to appear or does not ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence or address arguments, the successor INcome-tax Officer has the competence to impose a penalty after scrutiny and consideration of the written representation, without making available to the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard, unless the assessee himself asks for such opportunity under the first proviso to section 5(7C).