KURIAN P V Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is to quash Ext. P. 7, by which the Income Tax Officer imposed a penalty on the petitioner under S.28(1)(c) read with S.18A(9) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 referred to hereinafter as the Act. There was a completed assessment against the petitioner, for the assessment year 1954-55, for a sum of forty-six thousand odd rupees. The Income Tax Officer made a demand on the petitioner under S.18A of the Act for advance payment of income tax for the assessment year 1956-57, specifying the petitioner's income as forty-six thousand odd rupees, on the basis of the completed assessment as aforesaid, for the year 1954-1955. The petitioner made a counter estimate for an income of ten thousand rupees, and ultimately by Ext. P. 2, he was assessed on a total income of thirty-four thousand nine-hundred and nine rupees for that assessment year. This was inclusive, of a sum of over sixteen thousand rupees received by the petitioner, by way of interest, on an amount which had been decreed to him as compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, and also of his share of the income of the firm which had taken over his business from April, 1953. When Ext. P. 2 was passed, the Income Tax Officer made a note in it, that as the petitioner had not shown in his return, the sum of sixteen thousand odd rupees received by him as interest as aforesaid, action under S.28(1)(c) of the Act was being taken separately ; but this was in respect of the contents of the return made by the petitioner, and does not relate to the present proceedings, which were based on the return of ten thousand rupees which the petitioner had submitted, in answer to the demand for advance payment of income tax.

(2.) S.18A(9) and 28(1)(c) so far as they are material to this case are as follows:--

(3.) The petitioner's learned counsel advanced a further contention that it is a debatable question, whether the interest received by the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act constitutes income, which is assessable to tax under the Act, and that therefore the disparity in the return to that extent, ought not to have weighed with the Income Tax Officer. The Allahabad High Court had taken the view in Behari Lal Bhargava v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 9 ITR 9 that it is not assessable, but this view has been doubted by two other High Courts in India. The reply to this argument was, that the petitioner had not raised this point before the Income Tax Officer. The notice to the petitioner to show cause against the levy, did not specify the grounds on which the penalty was sought to be imposed. The petitioner had no doubt raised this point before the revisional authority, but it was overruled. In the absence of any indication in Ext. P. 7 to the contrary, it is reasonable to think, that the Income Tax Officer had been influenced also by the fact, that this amount was received by the petitioner, just a few days before he filed his counter estimate. The error which the Income Tax Officer could then be deemed to have committed in this respect, consisted in allowing himself to be influenced by the receipt by the petitioner of this sum of money which accounted for a substantial part of the disparity between the counter estimate made by him and the amount on which he was ultimately assessed for the year. This conclusion as to the error, is of course a matter of inference though, as I think, a reasonable inference, to make. However, I prefer to rest my decision in this petition on the first ground set forth earlier. The result is, that Ext. P. 7 is quashed, but without costs.