C ABDULLA AND CO Vs. ITO CANNANORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been assessed to income tax for the assessment year 1960-61. The tax imposed for the year on him is Rs. 3,696/-. Demand was made for the payment of this tax and for non payment of the tax penalty was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner had appealed from the order of assessment and had made infructuous attempts before the Income Tax Officer and Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to get him treated as a non defaulter pursuant to application made under S.220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is averred in the affidavit in support of the petition that the Income Tax Officer rejected his prayer though time was granted for a week by order dated 28-10-1963. Even this order was passed it appears, only after the petitioner had approached the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner passed an order Ext. P 1 which reads as follows:

(2.) It is contended by counsel on behalf of the petitioner that in passing Ext. P 2 order the respondent has not even tried to comply with the principles of natural justice. He also invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court and contended that the foundation for the imposition of penalty in this case, the assessment order, has been set aside by me in my Judgment in O. P. No. 345 of 1964 and that therefore the demand made pursuant to the original order of assessment and the penalty imposed for non compliance with the demand have also ceased to be. Reliance has been placed for this contention on the observations of Mr. Justice Sarkar in the decision in Income Tax Officer, Kolar Circle, Kolar and another v. Seghu Buchiah Setty ( AIR 1964 SC 1473 ). This is what Their Lordships observed dealing with the question as to whether proceedings can be continued pursuant to demand made on the basis of an assessment order which had been set aside in appeal.

(3.) I dismiss this writ application but make no order as to costs.