Transitional penalty classification under income tax law lacked rational nexus and could not support new penalty proceedings.

Transitional penalty provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961 are discussed as requiring a rational nexus with the legislative object: a classification based only on the chance date of completion of assessment was treated as having no connection with the default and was held incompatible with Article 14. The text also explains that penalty proceedings under section 271 could not be sustained where the assessment had arisen under the repealed Income-tax Act, 1922 and had to proceed under the old regime, because the statutory precondition for invoking the new penalty machinery was absent. The impugned penalty orders were therefore unsustainable on both constitutional and statutory grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 297(2)(g) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which applied the new penalty provisions to assessees whose assessments were completed after 1 April 1962 though returns had been filed earlier, violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether penalty proceedings could validly be initiated under section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in cases where the assessment proceedings had arisen under the Income-tax Act, 1922 and were governed by the repealing and saving provisions.

Issue (i): Whether section 297(2)(g) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which applied the new penalty provisions to assessees whose assessments were completed after 1 April 1962 though returns had been filed earlier, violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The classification made by section 297(2)(g) rested solely on the fortuitous circumstance of the date on which assessment was completed. The assessees grouped together had already filed returns before 1 April 1962, and the character of their defaults did not change because the assessment was completed before or after that date. The new penalty scheme differed materially from the old one in several respects, including the authority competent to impose penalty, the safeguards before initiation, the availability of immunity from prosecution, and the minimum and maximum consequences. The date of completion of assessment had no rational connection with the object of selecting cases for the new penalty regime.

Conclusion: Section 297(2)(g) was invalid as violative of Article 14, and the assessees could not be subjected to the new penalty regime on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty proceedings could validly be initiated under section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in cases where the assessment proceedings had arisen under the Income-tax Act, 1922 and were governed by the repealing and saving provisions.

Analysis: Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, operates only where the default is noticed in the course of proceedings under that Act. In the cases before the Court, the proceedings had been initiated under the repealed Act and were required to be completed under that Act for the relevant assessees. Section 297(2)(g) did not itself create a charging provision for penalty; it merely indicated the law to be applied. Since the statutory precondition for action under section 271 was absent, the penalty orders could not be sustained under the new Act.

Conclusion: Penalty proceedings under section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not maintainable in the circumstances of these cases.

Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty orders were unsustainable, and the assessees were entitled to relief because the impugned transitional classification was unconstitutional and the new penalty provisions could not be invoked against them.

Ratio Decidendi: A transitional classification in fiscal legislation must have a rational nexus with the legislative object, and where the only basis is the chance date of completion of assessment with no connection to the default or the object of penalty, the provision offends Article 14; further, a penalty provision confined to proceedings under the new Act cannot be invoked where the relevant proceedings arose and had to continue under the repealed Act.

---