This companytention was number accepted by the Income tax Commissioner.
In order to give effect to the proviso the Central Board of Revenue framed rule 42 and numberified it on December 14, 1953.
25,973/5 as advance tax for the assessment year 1948 49.
Shah, J. The 1st Income tax Officer, C 11 Ward, Bombay served a numberice tinder s. 18 A 1 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 calling upon Bhagwandas Kevaldas who will hereinafter be called the assessee to pay in four equal installments Rs.
The assessee then moved the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by a petition under Art.
Appeals from the judgment and orders dated November 13, 1958 of the Bombay High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No.
He, however, directed that in the circumstances of the case the respondents would be liable to pay penal interest only for the period between January 1, 1948 and June 13, 1950.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, C. A. Ramachandran, J. B. Dada chanji, 0.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. G. K. Achar, for the appellants in both the appeals .
217 and 218 of 1958.
14,929/10 as interest due under s. 18 A 6 for the period January 1, 1948 to July 22, 1950.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Being dissatisfied with this decision the respondents moved the High Court for a writ under Art.
An order under S. 23 B of the Act provisionally assessing the income was made by the Income tax Officer and pursuant thereto on August 23, 1950 the assessee paid the tax so assessed.
On September 17, 1947 the assessee filed an estimate of his income under s. 18 A 2 and of the tax payable by him, and on January 10, 1948 he filed a revised estimate.
C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent in both the appeals .
But the Income tax Officer made numbercharge for interest under sub s. 6 of S. 18 A of the Income tax Act.
Against the order passed by the High Court the Commissioner of Income tax and the Income tax Officer have, with certificate granted by the High Court, appealed to this Court.
Regular assessment of the income of the assessee was made on March 31, 1953 by the Income tax Officer, and it was found that the tax paid on the basis of the estimate of the assessee was less than eighty per cent of the tax determined as a result of the regular assessment.
1003 and 1004 of 1963.
On October 4, 1956 the Income tax Officer recorded the following order During the internal checking of C 11 Ward, the Auditor has pointed out a mistake in number charging penal interest under s. 18 A 6 .
The High Court of Bombay following its earlier judgment in the case of Shantilal Ravji v. M. C. Nair, IV Income tax Officer, G Ward, Bombay and Another 1 directed that the orders passed by the Income tax Officer and by the Commissioner of Income tax be quashed.
due numberice to the assessee.
The Judgment of Gajendragadkar, C.J., Wanchoo, Shah, and Sikri, JJ.
226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ certiorari summoning the record of the case and for an order quashing or setting aside the order passed under s. 33 A 2 by the Commissioner of Income tax and the order passed by the Income tax Officer under s. 35 and the numberice of demand pursuant to that order.
was delivered by Shah, J. Mudholkar, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.
On September 21, 1956 the Income tax Officer served a numberice upon the assessee requiring him to show cause why the mistake in number levying interest be number rectified and why he should number be directed to pay penal interest under s. 18 A 6 .
At the hearing of this appeal companynsel for the assessee raised an objection in liming that the appeal filed by the Commissioner and the Income tax Officer was incompetent.
