TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (12) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 24th Aug.,1958, 26th Feb.,1960 and 30th Aug.,1960. Admittedly, assessments for the assessment years in question were completed on 28th Nov.,1962, 28th Dec., 1963 and 8th Feb., 1965 respectively. 3. The grievance of the assessee-appellant is that no penalty under the old Act could be levied in view of the provisions contained in s. 297 (2) (g) of the IT Act. 1961. It was argued that in view of the clear provision in s. 297(2)(g) of the Act of 1961, action for levying penalty could be taken only under the new Act and not under the old Act. Since the time limit for taking action under the new Act had already expired, the ITO was not competent to levy penalty by taking recourse to s. 28(1)(a) of the IT Act 1922, wherein in no limitation for l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was made clear by the Supreme Court in Jain Bros. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1970) 77 ITR 107. Before the Supreme Court, the issue was about the Constitutional validity of s. 297(2)(g) of the IT Act 1961. While answering this issue their Lordships made certain important observations which find place at page 116 of the report. We will reproduce a few extracts - (i) There can be no manner of doubt that penalty has to be calculated and imposed according to the tax assessed. It follows that imposition of penalty can take place only after assessment has been completed. For this reason there was every justification for providing to cl. (f) and (g) that the date of the completion of the assessment would be determinative off the enactment u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to consider the question about the applicability of the new Act in a case where a notice under s. 22(2) of the Act of 1922 had been issued by the ITO dealing with this question. Their Lordships clearly laid down the following rule : "We are further unable to agree that the language of s. 271 does not warrant the taking of proceedings under that section when a default had been committed by failure to comply with a notice issued under s. 22(2) of the Act of 1922. It is true that cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 271 mentions the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1961 but that will not make the part relating to payment of penalty inapplicable once it is held that s. 297 (2) (g) governs the case. Both ss. 271(1) & 297 (2) (g) have to be read ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een issued under the old Act itself. s. 297 (2) (g) will not apply to this case and the case will come under s. 297 (2) (a) or (f) of the new Act. For this proposition, he relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court and two of the Gujarat High Court. They are as follows: (i) Kalawati Devi Harlaka vs. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 680 SC (ii) T.S. Baliah vs. T.S. Pangachari ITO (1969) 72 ITR 787 SC (iii) Sheth Gunvantlal Mangaldas & Ors. vs. CIT, 1968 68 ITR 740 (Guj) (iv) CIT vs. Kiranchandra Madhusudan Patel (1975) 98 ITR 141 (Guj) It will not be very useful to deal with every case cited by the learned departmental representative in detail. Suffice to say that the case of Kalawati Devi is not in point, because their Lordships of the Supreme Cour....