TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (11) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f section 271 of the Act as they stood before the amendment in 1964 should be considered for purposes of imposing penalty under that section ? " The question that had been recommended by the Commissioner for being referred to the High Court was : "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in ignoring the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act and holding that the assessee could not be penalised for not declaring perquisite amounting to Rs. 1,500 and income from undisclosed sources amounting to Rs. 33,964 ?" The Tribunal noticed that the Commissioner was not challenging the conclusion of the Tribunal that no penalty was imposable by reference to the addition of the property income in the assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d been paid to the extent of income of Rs. 91,477. Another revised return had been filed by the assessee, again showing an income of Rs. 1,21,463 and the tax deducted at source and advance tax paid on income amounting to Rs. 91,477. The ITO, however, completed the assessment on March 20, 1968, determining a total income of Rs. 2,13,698. He also initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c). As the minimum penalty leviable exceeded Rs. 1,000, the case was referred to the IAC. He took the view that inasmuch as the return had been filed by the assessee on November 22, 1967, by which time the word "deliberately " had been deleted from s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and an Explanation was added to that section, the assessee would be deemed to have c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 271 of the Act as they stood before the amendment in 1964 should be considered for the purpose of imposing a penalty under that section for both the years ? " As the question of law is common in all the I.T. References, we are going to give only one opinion. As noticed earlier, the short question is whether s. 271(1), as amended in 1964, was attracted for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1963-64. Mr. Lalwani appearing for the Revenue contends that the offence was , ommitted when the revised returns were filed in 1967 in pursuance of notice issued to the assessee under s. 148 of the Act. Therefore, the law in force at that poi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the offence would be applicable. This is in consonance with the general law of the land that a person can be punished only for that offence which was an offence under law on the date when the alleged offence was committed. In Balwant Singh's case [1981] 127 ITR 597 (MP), a Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore also took the same view. In this case the assessment year was 1959-60. The assessee had filed his return and the assessment had been completed. The ITO reopened the assessment for that year and issued notice to the assessee under s. 148 of the Act. In response to that notice the assessee filed another return on December 21, 1969, declaring an income of Rs. 5,000. The ITO, however, added an amount of Rs. 20,000 as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents were completed. Subsequently, in response to notices under s. 148 of the Act, the assessee filed fresh returns on April 17, 1968. Penalties were imposed by the IAC for both the assessment years as returns filed even after notice under s. 148 were not accepted and assessments were made at higher figures. The Tribunal took the view on appeals by the assessee that the amending Act was not retrospective and that penalties could only be imposed on the basis of the default committed in the original return. The High Court on reference upheld this view. In CIT v. A. Rahman [1979] 119 ITR 475, a Bench of the Patna High Court took the same view as the Allahabad High Court that concealment occurred at the time when the original returns were fi....