High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir
Mulkh Raj Bimal Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr.
Section 271(4A)
M.A. Shah, J.
Writ Petn. No. 159 of 1976
27th October, 1988
Counsel Appeared
Subash Dutt, for the petitioner : T.S. Thakur for the Respondents
M. A. SHAH, J.:
The petitioner-firm in this petition is aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No. 1 on September 3, 1971, imposing penalty of Rs. 5,810 on it for filing a late return treating the firm as unregistered for the purposes of imposition of penalty and also by the order passed by respondent No. 2, the CIT, on its application under s. 271(4A) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter called “the Act”), on October 10, 1975, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to condone the delay on imposition of penalty simply on the ground that the assessee has been assessed to tax for a number of years prior to 1967-68.
2. While hearing the petition, learned counsel for the respective parties submitted that the facts of the present petition are identical on the point of law as agitated in Writ Petition No. 151 of 1976 titled Mohd. Umar and Co. vs. ITO (1990) 181 ITR 146 (J. & K.). I have held in the said petition that the CIT, Amritsar, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law in not giving the benefit of section 271(4A) of the Act to the petitioner. The order suffers from the vice of jurisdiction as well as also from the defect that it is a non-speaking order. The ratio of the said case applies with full force in the instant case.
On the same grounds as decided in Writ Petition No. 151 of 1976 (1990) 181 ITR 146 (J. & K.) by which decision this petition is also covered, I allow the present petition, quash the impugned order passed by the learned CIT on October 10, 1975, and direct that respondent No. 2 shall reconsider the application of the petitioner on merits and decide it afresh according to law.
The parties, however, are left to bear their own costs.
[Citation :181 ITR 149]
