1989 (10) TMI 23

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase references are at the instance of the Revenue. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in compliance with the directions of this court given under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act and made in T. C. P. Nos. 142 to 144 of 1978, has drawn up a consolidated statement of the case relating to the assessment years 1966-67 to 1968-69. The common question of law referred to this court for its opini....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was of the view that the levy of penalty must be at the rates prevailing on the date when the default occurred and not on the date when the Wealth-tax Officer passed the order. On that view, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner remanded the matter to the Wealthtax Officer to recompute the penalties with reference to the rates of penalty in for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al, the Revenue succeeded in having the cases referred to this court as mentioned above. Mr. N. V. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, placing reliance on the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330, submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal following the decision of the court in CGT v. C. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar [1975] 98 I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ult continued with an optimum of 50% of the tax due becomes payable. As rightly pointed out in Jain Brothers' case [1970] 77 ITR 107 (SC), the question of imposition of penalty would arise only after assessment of tax is made and, therefore, in Suresh Seth's case [1981] 129 ITR 328 (SC) on the analogy of the ratio accepted by this court in Jain Brothers' case, the amended provisions would become a....