Mulkh Raj Bimal Kumar vs Income Tax Officer and Another

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 a

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 Commissioner of Income Tax, on its application u/s 271(4A) of the Income Tax 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 assesses has been assessed to tax for a number of years prior to 1967-68.

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. Income Tax Officer and Another, . I have held in the said petition

that the Commissioner of Income Tax, 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 Mohd. Umar and Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Another, by which decision this petition is also covered,

I allow the present petition, quash the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner 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.