head note:
income tax
reference--question of factpenalty under section 271(1)(c)held: finding of tribunal that the assessee had not been able to discharge burden under explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the act was a finding of fact, hence was not to be interfered with. the tribunal was, therefore, justified in confirming penalty levied under the said section.
income tax act, 1961 s.256(1)
in the allahabad high court m. katju & umeshwar pandey, jj.
- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no.....orderthis is an income tax reference under section 256(1) of the income tax act, in which the following question has been referred to us for our opinion:'whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income tax appellate tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty of rs. 10,000 levied under the explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the income tax act, 1961?2. the finding of fact is that the assessee has been unable to discharge burden under section 271(1)(c) of the income tax act. thus is a finding of fact. hence, we cannot interfere with the same. the reference is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, ie., in favour of the department and against the assessee.