JAGANNATH RAMESHWAR PRASAD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, has been made to this court for its opinion on the following question :

(2.) THE assessee is a Hindu undivided family, which admittedly before May 7, 1950, was part of a lager Hindu undivided family carrying on business under the name Baij Nath Rameshwar Prasad. During the assessment proceedings for the year 1950-51, in respect of the larger Hindu undivided family an application was made under section 25A (1) for an order that the larger family had been partitioned on May 7, 1950. That application remained pending until March 29, 1956, when an order was made by the Income-tax Officer accepting the claim and recognizing that the larger family had been partitioned on May 7, 1950. THE assessee Hindu undivided family did not pay any advance tax under section 18A (3) for the assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54, the relevant accounting periods being, respectively, the years ending October 30, 1951, and October 17, 1952. THE Income-tax Officer made an order under section 18A (9) (b) read with section 28(1) (a) imposing a penalty upon the assessee on the ground that it was bound to pay advance tax under section 18A (3) in respect of the assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54 and had failed to do so. THE penalty orders were challenged in appeal by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeals. THE Income-tax Officer proceeded in appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal having found in favour of the Income-tax Officer restored the orders of penalty. At the instance of the assessee, the instant reference has been made.

(3.) IN the circumstances, the question referred to this court must be answered in the negative and against the assessee. The Commissioner of INcome-tax is entitled to his costs, which we assess at Rs. 200. Counsels fee is assessed in the figure.