SHRILAL SAGARMULL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 66(2), Income -tax Act, made by the, Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench B, on a question of law formulated as follows :

(2.) THE assessee is a Hindu undivided family carrying on business in grains, grocery and twists at Sambalpur. A notice under Section 22(2), Income, tat Act was served on the assessee on 31 -5 -43, but he failed to make a return of his total income, and the assessment was subsequently made under Section 23(4) on 11 -1 -44. The Income -tax Officer thereupon issued a notice under Section 28(3) on 10 -1 -44 calling upon the assessee to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed.

(3.) I would also like to point out that different words are used in the different Sections of the Act, to express clearly what was intended. A reference may be made to the first proviso to clause (h) of sub -section (3) of Section 31. That proviso says that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner shall not enhance the assessment or the penalty unless the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement. The second proviso says : 'Provided further that at the hearing of any appeal against an order of an Income -tax Officer, the Income -Tax Officer shall have the right to be heard either in person or by a representative.'