COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. PREM LATA SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of six Income-tax References Nos. 15 to 20 of 1973 which relate to different assessment years in respect of the same assessed and involve a common question of law.

(2.) THE Income-tax Officer had imposed penalties in different amounts against these assessees under Sub-section (1) of Section 221 of the income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as " the Act")- The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the penalties as levied by the Income-tax Officer. In the appeal filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as " the Tribunal "), the contention of the assessees was that no penalty could be imposed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 221 of the Act, in the circumstances of the case, because this section does not specifically mention that it is the Income-tax Officer who is to impose the penalty. For this contention he relied upon a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Kusum Kumari v. Union of India, [1972] 85 I. T. R. 19 (All. ). The facts in the case before the Tribunal were fully covered by the aforesaid decision of the Allahabad High Court.

(3.) ON behalf of the revenue it was contended that the Bench decision was not of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and, therefore, was not of a binding nature. The Tribunal however, observed as under: ". . . The judgment of their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court covers this case and we do not agree with the learned departmental representative when he contends that technically we are not bound by the judgment of their Lordship of the Allahabad High Court. The judgment being from a superior court provides us with a sufficient guidance to decide the issue and, in seeking guidance from the judgment of their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court, we are doing nothing else but cementing the conventions of the rule of law which are well established, well accepted and, therefore, have a binding influence on us. We, therefore, entirely agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee. . . "