Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

K.P. NARAYANAPPA SETTY & CO. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, A.P.


Section 28 is not appropriate to be fined after the delay. Should be fined within a reasonable period, the period of nine years, holding, was not appropriate period.

1989 P T D 1333

[Andhra Pradesh High Court (India)]

Before Chinappa Reddy and A.D. V. Reddy, JJ

K.P. NARAYANAPPA SETTY & CO.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, A.P

.

R.C. No.8 of 1970, decided on 5th November, 1971.

Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)--

---S.28--Penalty--Levy of penalty after inordinate delay is not proper--Penalty has to be levied within a reasonable time--Period of nine years, held , was not reasonable period.

S. Dasaratharama Reddy for the Assessee.

P.Rama Rao for the Commissioner.

Date of hearing: 5th November, 1989

JUDGMENT

A.D.V. REDDY, J.--

The question referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal is as follows:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any penalty was eligible in the assessee"s case for the assessment year 1946-47

For the assessment year 1946-47 the assessee was assessed to a certain sum of tax and the assessment became final on July 24, 1954. But there was no order levying penalty in his case till July 1, 1963. Though no period for levying the penalty has been fixed in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, it has been held by this Court that there should not be any inordinate delay and it should be levied within a reasonable time. Even under the new Act the period prescribed for levy of penalty is two years after the completion of the assessment. In the present case even after the order of the Tribunal on the assessment a period of nine years had elapsed. The department has not chosen to furnish any explanation for the inordinate delay. Here reduction in the quantum of penalty is not a ground to say that no interference is justified. As there is inordinate delay we consider that the levy of penalty has not been made within a reasonable time. We therefore, answer the reference m the negative. There will be no order as to costs. Advocate"s fee.Rs.100.

M.B.A./695/T. Question answered in the negative.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
pakistani advocates Neelam lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.