COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RAM CHANDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar, Patna, these two references under Section 256(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "1961 Act"), has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, for decision of the following question of law :

(2.) THE relevant facts of Tax Case No. 22 of 1970 are these. For the assessment year 1957-58, Sri Ramchandra Singh, the assessee, was for the first time assessed on a total income of Rs. 70,500. After the completion of the assessment, the Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 under Section 18A(9) read with Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as "1922 Act"). THE penalty was imposed because the assessee had not filed an estimate of his income under section 18A(3). When the matter finally went up in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, the quantum of penalty was reduced to Rs. 1,000. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer proceeded to reopen the assessment under Section 34 of the 1922 Act. He assessed Sri Ramchandra Singh on a total income of Rs. 98,110 which was later on reduced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by Rs. 19,704 on appeal by the assessee. In view of the fresh assessment, the Income-tax Officer again started a proceeding against the assessee under Section 18A(9) for non-filing of the estimate of his income as required under Section 18A(3) THE Income-tax Officer thereafter levied a penalty of Rs, 1,600 on the assessee. When the matter was taken up before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, be was of the view that for the same default the assessee could not be penalised twice over. He, therefore, vacated the order of the Income-tax Officer levying the revised penalty on the assessee. THE revenue came up in appeal before the Tribunal. THE Tribunal held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in cancelling the penalty and confirmed his order. THE Commissioner of Income-tax thereupon filed an application before the Tribunal for making a reference under Section 256(1) of the 1961 Act, and the reference has been made accordingly.

(3.) IT is clear from the above provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 34 that an assessment or reassessment contemplated thereunder cannot be held to be a regular assessment. Similar provision has been made in Section 147 of the 1961 Act. In Section 2(40) of this Act "regular assessment" has been defined as assessment made under Section 143 or Section 144. Section 273 of the 1961 Act is similar to Section 18A(9) of the 1922 Act, and it reads as follows;