INCOME-TAX OFFICER VS A.M.S. SALI MARICAR
2001 P T D 2470
[247 I T R 808]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: B. P. Jeevan Reddy and K. S. Paripoornan, JJ
INCOME‑TAX OFFICER and another
Versus
A.M.S. SALI MARICAR
Civil Appeals Nos. 152 and 153 of 1979, decided on 30/10/1996.
(Appeals from the judgment and order, dated December 6, 1972 of the Madras High Court in W.Ps. Nos.594 and 595 of 1970).
Income‑tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Self‑assessment‑: ‑Non‑payment of tax‑‑‑Penalty‑‑‑Not confiscatory‑‑ Valid‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 140A(3)‑‑‑Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(f)‑‑‑[A. M. Sali Maricar v. I.T.O. (1973) 90 ITR 116 reversed].
Subsection (3) of section 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provided for penalty for non‑payment of tax on self‑assessment, does not infringe Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.
A.M. Sali Maricar v. I.T.O. (1973) 90 ITR 116 reversed.
Kashiram v. ITO (1977) 107 ITR 825 (AP); K. Sampangirama Raju v. ITO (Fifth) (1988) 173 ITR 609 (Kar.); CIT v. J. Pitambardas & Co. (1995) 216 ITR 172 (Bom.) and Mary Issac v. IAC (1987) 163 ITR 341 (Ker.) approved.
Dr. R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate (Anil Srivastava and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellants.
A.T.M. Sampath, Advocate for Respondent.
ORDER
These appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the judgment of the Madras High Court (see (1973) 90 ITR 116), declaring subsection (3) of section 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as void on the ground that it is violative of Article 19(1)(t) of the Constitution of India. The said judgment has been disagreed to by almost all the High Courts in the country' including the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kashiram v. ITO (1977) 107 ITR 825, the Karnataka High Court in K. Sampangirama Raju v. (Fifth) ITO (1988) 173 ITR 609, the Bombay High Court in CIT v. J. Pitambardas & Co. (1995) 216 ITR 172 and the Kerala High Court in Mary Issac v. IAC (1987) 163 ITR 341. We agree with the reasoning given by the Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Bombay and the Kerala High Courts and disagree with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at in the judgment under appeal. Since the provision has been repealed long ago, we do not think it necessary to say more on the subject except to say that these appeals are allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. No costs.
M.B.A./1000/FCAppeals allowed.