Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 71 of 1972, decided on 29th June 1972.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 2nd December 1971, in P. T. R. No. 199 of 1971).

Income‑tax Act (XI of 1922),

S. 28(6)‑Approval of penalty by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner‑Power of approval does not include power to amend proposed penalty so as to reduce or enhance same.

S. Abdul Haque, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iftikharuddin Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 29th June 1972.

The assessee‑respondent is a registered firm. As it failed to pay advance tax as required under section 18‑A (1) of the Income‑tax Act, a penalty of Rs. 1,000 was proposed to be imposed on it by the Income‑tax Officer. Under section 28(6) such imposition of the penalty is subject to approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, however, neither approved nor disapproved of the penalty proposed by the Income‑tax Officer, but straightaway directed the respondent to pay a penalty of Rs.5,000. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the penalty to Rs.1,000 and this order was upheld by the Income‑tax Tribunal, and the High Court.

It has been contended before us that the power to approves includes the power to alter the penalty proposed by the Income, tax Officer either by reduction or enhancement.

The High Court refused to accept this contention and helot that the power to approve did not include the power to amend the proposed penalty.

This is not a fit ease for interference by this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Leave refused,

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.