TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (10) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) on the basis of either the original return or the return under section 148 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penal provisions for default under section 271(1)(c) as amended on April 1, 1968, are applicable in the case of the applicant ?" The assessee is a company. The proceedings relate to its assessment for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1962-63 (both inclusive). Returns were originally filed and the assessments were completed long before the penal provisions under section 271(1)(c) were amended with effect from April 11, 1968. During the original assessment proceedings, there was no concealme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income in response to the notice under section 148 were filed after April 1, 1968. According to the assessee, the penalties were to be under the provisions as they existed prior to April 1, 1968, whereas, according to the Department, it was the law that obtained on and from April 1, 1968, that would govern the imposition of penalty. But the Tribunal, at that stage, did not consider it necessary to decide the issue inasmuch as, in its view, the quantum of penalty sustained by it was higher than the minimum and lower than the maximum on either basis. Subsequent thereto, both the assessee and the Department filed miscellaneous applications. It was stated that there was a mistake in the data furnished to the Tribunal during the appellate pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it is the law on the date of the filing of the first return that should govern the imposition of penalty. In support, Shri Munim placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Brij Mohan v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 1 and the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Addl. CIT v. Joginder Singh [1985] 151 ITR 93. Shri Jetley, learned counsel for the Department, on the other hand, relied upon the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in Addl. CIT v. Balwantsingh Sulakhanmal [1981] 127 ITR 597 where a contrary view was taken. There is no dispute that, in the case before us, the returns originally filed as well as the returns filed in response to the notices issued under section 148 were not correct returns inasmuch as the income sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which of the dates, i.e., the dates when the returns were filed originally when returns were subsequently filed are the material dates for the purpose. Admittedly, the provision to be applied is as it stands on the date when default which attracts penalty is committed. The returns filed originally, there is no dispute, were first in point of time, were incorrect and involved concealment of income. From this point of view, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) as they stood on he dates when such returns were filed were certainly attracted. It may be that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) as they stood on the dates when incorrect returns involving concealment of income were subsequently filed are also attracted. However, when the assessee ....