CHHOTEY LAL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are these :-- THEre was a business firm known as Niranjan Lal Ghanshyam Das. THE firm was doing business at Daranagar in the District of Allahabad. It had five partners. THE appellant was one of them. It was dissolved on April 11, 1948.

(2.) THE firm was assessed to income tax for the assessment year 1948-49 on February 2, 1950. On January 17 1951 a penalty of Rs. 6,000 was imposed on the firm under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act 1922 (hereinbelow called the Act). THE penalty was not paid, and on November 12, 1961 the Income Tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 600 for default in payment of the penalty imposed under Section 28. THE appellant was then asked to pay the amount of the second penalty He protested and filed a writ petition in this Court. THE petition was dismissed on merits by a learned single Judge; hence this appeal.

(3.) WE would like to point out certain difficulties in the way of construing the word 'income tax' as including 'penalty' also. Firstly, the extensive construction would make a part of Section 47 superfluous. A construction which makes a legislative provision redundant shall not be readily accepted. WE have not been shown any compelling reason to think that Section 47 is partly redundant. It is not a sufficient explanation to say that Section 47 is the product of abundant caution. Secondly, the words 'income tax' and 'penalty' have been used separately in the other provisions of the Act. Section 29 speaks of "any tax, penalty or interest'. Again, Sub-section (5A) of Section 46 itself speaks of "arrears of income tax and penalty". Lastly, we venture to think that Sub-section (1) of Section 46 being a provision of punitive nature the word 'income tax' should receive its ordinary and natural meaning. No one should be put in peril on an ambiguity.