1971 (3) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the following two questions of law for our opinion : "(1) Whether the substantive law of penalties could be held to be retrospective in character even in the absence of a specific statement in the Act which renders it retrospective? (2) Whether the same substantive law as is operative from April 1, 1962, onwards is to be applied in respect of the offences committed prior to March 31, 1962 ?....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee's reply to the show cause notice, the Income-tax Officer held that a default had been committed which was punishable under section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act. He calculated the penalty under section 271(1)(i) of the 1961 Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 19,142, being 50 per cent. of the tax which would be payable by the firm. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced that penalt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tment and against the assessee. This has to be so in view of the Supreme Court decisions in lain Brothers v. Union of India and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Singh Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. The principal contention on behalf of the assessee is that in view of the provisions of section 297(2)(g) of the 1961 Act, the penalty though leviable under the 1961 Act (i.e., under section 271(1)), its q....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his Act : ........." The contention is that the word " such " must be given a meaning and it can only be given a meaning by holding that the penalty had to be imposed under the 1922 Act. If the penalty had to be imposed under the 1961 Act, the use of the word " such " would be superfluous. However, in view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Singh Engineering Works' case, we have....