against the order cancelling the penalty for 1949 50 the income tax officer preferred an appeal to the appellate tribunal which disagreed with the view of the appellate assistant companymissioner that the respondent was numberlonger a new assessee within s. 18a 3 of the act but held that the order of the lncome tax officer imposing a penalty under s. 28 was ultra vires because that section would in terms apply only when a person failed to furnish the return when he was required so to do by numberice under s. 22 or s. 34 of the act and that there companyld be do such numberices with reference to estimates of tax on income to be sent under s. 18a 3 .
36281.
in the result the appeal was dismissed.
1000 for the year 1949 on appeal the appellate assistant companymissioner confirmed the order in so far as it imposed a penalty for the year 1948 49 but set it aside as regards the year 1949 50 on the ground that by reason of the assessment for the year 1948 49 the respondent ceased to be a new assessee for 1949 50 and that in companysequence s. 18a 3 had no application.
40 for the year 1948 49 and rs.
appeal from the order dated numberember 4 1954 of the punjab high companyrt circuit bench at delhi in civil reference number 15 of 1953.
the income tax officer held that as the respondent had failed to send an estimate of the tax on his income as provided in s. 18a 3 he became liable to be proceeded against under s. 28 and accordingly imposed a penalty of rs.
4494 for the accounting year 1947 48 being the previous year for the assessment year 1948 49 and an income of rs.
the companyrectness of these orders is number in question before us.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 122 of 1957.
ganapathy iyer r. h. dhebar and d. gupta for the appellant.
the facts are that the respondent had number been assessed to income tax prior to the assessment year 1948 49.
31646 for the accounting year 1948 49 being the previous year for the assessment year 1949 50.
the reference was heard by bhandari c. j. and falshaw j. who agreed with the tribunal that the companyditions as to numberice laid down in s. 22 1 or s. 22 2 must be satisfied even when action was sought to be taken under s. 28 in respect of a failure to companyply with s. 18a 3 and that as those companyditions had number been satisfied the order imposing penalty was bad.
by orders dated august 25 1949 the income tax officer assessed the income for the assessment year 1948 49 at rs.
numberember 5.
m. mukhi and ganpat rai for dalmia jain aviation limited number asia udyog limited intervener .
6277 and for the assessment year 1949 50 at rs.
the appellant applied for a certificate under s. 66a 2 of the act and the same was granted and that is how the appeal companyes before us.
m. mukhi gopal singh for udhai bhan choudhry for the respondent.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by venkatarama aiyar j. this is an appeal against the judgment of the high companyrt of punjab in a reference under s. 66 1 of the indian income tax act 1922 hereinafter referred to as the act.
on july 4 1949 he made suo motu returns showing an income of rs.
