O.P. Khaitan vs Deputy Director Of Income Tax ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 500 Del

JUDGMENT

1. Initially, the assessed by filing this writ petition has prayed for several prayers. However, after the assessment order being passed by the AO, this petition is not required to be entertained as per the prayer clauses. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that he would only like to press the relief so far as the order (Annex. R1) dt. 17th July, 1990 is concerned.

2. By an order under Section 272A(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, on 17th July, 1990, the Dy. Director of IT (Inv.) arrived at a conclusion that the assessed had no valid ground for seeking an adjournment and for not appearing before the AO in response to the summons under Section 131 of the IT Act, 1961, and therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 under Section 272A(1)(c) of the Act. The assessed submitted that there was no deliberate attempt on his part to not respond to the summons under Section 131(1) of the Act. No doubt, he had submitted an adjournment application for the second time on the ground that he had gone out of station on account of business tour.

3. Looking to the nature of the work which assessed was performing and is performing, it is difficult to say that he was not justified in remaining outside Delhi on a business tour.

4. Considering the other averments made in the petition with regard to his absence and the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to allow the petition insofar as imposition of the penalty of Rs. 5,000 under Section 272A(1)(c) of the Act is concerned. Consequently, the petition is allowed to this extent and Annex. R1 is quashed. Rest of the prayers are not pressed as having become infructuous. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.