Case: Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. U.O.I.


Decision:
1[ds]32. It would, thus, be seen that under provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act in the first instance there is a discretion with the assessing authority whether to impose any penalty or not and if the assessing authority finds that it is a case for imposition of penalty then it has no discretion in the matter and the certain amount of penalty depending on the facts and circumstances of each case has to be imposed subject to the maximum limit mentioned in the section.Considering whole aspects of the matter, we are of the view that it was not a case for initiation of any disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. Charge of misconduct against him was not proper. It has to be quashed.43. Before concluding, there are two aspects of the matter which we wish to point out. These are :1. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Union of India, it has been said that the special leave petition filed by the appellant "is totally misconceived, premature and highly irresponsible". In the whole body of counter-affidavit strong language has been used. Union of India is not a private litigant. Such language in the pleading should be avoided. One can be firm without being impolite.2. There is a charge of misconduct against the Collector (now Commissioner) of Central Excise. While disciplinary proceedings are pending against him, he is transferred to the National Academy of Custom Excise and Narcotics to guide the probationers. It is certainly a paradoxical situation that a man who is not fit to hold that post of Collector is fit enough to impart training to the probationers entering the service. Best talent should be sent to the academy to teach the probationers. Posting to the academy should be considered as an honour and not punishment. Our comment is not reflection on the appellant herein as we have set aside the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him.