PunjabHaryana High Court Ram Saran Dass Kapur vs Commissioner Of IncomeTax, Patella on 24 March, 1969 Equivalent citations: AIR1969P&H429, [1970]77ITR298(P&H), AIR 1969 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 429, 1969 (2) ITJ 856, ILR (1970) 2 PUNJHAR 744, 71 PUN LR 1070, 77 ITR 298 JUDGMENT Narula, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Incometax Act (11 of 1922) (hereinafter called the Act) by the Incometax appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'B'): "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty bu the Incometax Officer "F" Ward, (Amtitsar is bad in law?" 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this reference are these: In respect of the proceedings for assessment if incometax for the assessment years 194647 and 194748, concealed income of Rs. 47.000 and Rs. 10,000 respectively was discovered after voluntary disclosure of an additional income of Rs. 40.667 in each of the abovesaid years had been made by the assessee in addition to the amount of the original assessment of the income of rs. 19.943 for the first year and Rs. 45.824 for the second year. After the conclusion of the proceedings relating to assessment of concealed Unicom, notice, dated November 24, 1955 in respect of the assessment year 194647 was issued to Shri Ram Saran Das Kapur applicant (hereinafter called the assessee) under subsection (3) of section 28 of the Act to show cause why a penalty should not be levied on the assessee for concealing the income in question. Similar notice in respect of assessment year 194748 was served on the assessee on December 26, 1955. In reply to the notice, dated, November 24, 1955, the assessee submitted written objections, dated April 14, 1956, in which he objected to the legality of the notice, the jurisdiction of the Incometax Officer, the vagueness of the notice and various other matters, and in which he finally stated in the penultimate paragraph as follows: "that a personal hearing nay kindly be given explain the case personally." A verbatim copy of the objections, dated April 14, 1956, was sent by the assessee to the Incometax Officer, Special Ward, Amritsar (which Income tax officer had issued and served the notice, under Section 28 (3) of the Act on the assessee) in respect of the assessment year 194748. It is the common case of both sides that in pursuance of the specific request contained in the written reply of the assessee, the Income tax Officer Special Ward, gave an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee and actually heard his arguments in support of those objections. Before the Incometax Officer, Special Ward, who had heard the assessee, would give a decision in the matter, the case for the imposition of penalty of the assessee were transferred to the Incometax Officer,'F' Ward Amtitsar. There is nothing to show that the assessee sent any communication or made any request to the Incometax Officer for any further hearing. This fact is also admitted that the Incometax officer 'F' Ward, never gave any see, and merely passed two separate orders, dated July 30, 1959, imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,000 in respect of the year 194647 and of Rs. 4,000 in respect of the year 194748. Aggrieved by the orders of imposition of penalty, the assessee went in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Incometax who by his order, dated October 29, 1959, set aside the order under appeal. The Incometax officer went up in appeal against the order of the Incometax Appellate assistant commissioner to the Appellate Tribunal. By order, dated October 30, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal allowed he appeal of the assessing authority, set aside, he order of the Appellate Assistant Commr. and remitted the appeal of the assessee for rehearing to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as he had not dealt with certain objections which were raised by the Department before the Tribunal. By his postremand order, dated September 24, 1962, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld and confirmed the order of the Incometax Officer in respect of the imposition as well as the quantum of the penalty in respect of he two years in dispute. In the assesses appeal preferred against the postremand order of the appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Appellate Tribunal by its judgment, dated September 23, 1963, repelled all the contentions of the assessee. The contention of the assessee with which we are concerned was disposed of in subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of paragraph 6 of the appellate tribunal's final order in the following words: "(ii) We have already noted above that the assessee besides filing a written explanation dated aril 14, 1956, requested that he may be heard personally. The Incometax officer did hear him personally on august 27, 1957. Thereafter the case went to the jurisdiction of the Incometax Officer, FWard. Section 5