TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (7) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....garh (hereinafter referred to as" the assessee ") was assessed to income-tax as an HUF. The ITO issued notice under s. 22(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as " the old Act ") requiring the assessee to file its return for the assessment year 1958-59, which was served on him on June 7, 1958. The assessee failed to file the return within the time allowed by the aforesaid notice and he also failed to apply for the extension of time for the submission of the return. Subsequently, the assessee filed the return for the relevant assessment year on December 21, 1962. While passing the order of assessment, the ITO also initiated proceedings for the imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of penalty to a sum of Rs. 2,000. On a reference being called by this court, the Tribunal referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the finding of the Tribunal that in the instant case penalty was imposable under section 271 (1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the rate of penalty provided in the said section and in taking into consideration the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and in reducing the penalty to Rs. 2,000 ? Mr. Mehta, appearing for the revenue, submitted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reduce the quantum of penalty below that specified in s. 271(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 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 section 297(2)(g) governs the case. Both sections 271(1) and 297(2)(g) have to be read together and in harmony and so read the only conclusion possible is that for the imposition of a penalty in respect of any assessment for the year ending on March 31, 1962, or any earlier year which is completed after first day of April, 1962, the proceedings have to be initiated and the penalty imposed in accordance with the provisions of section 271 of the Act of 1961. Thus, the assessee would be liable to a penalty as provided by section 271(1) for the default mentioned in section 28(1) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....31, 1962, or any earlier assessment year, in which assessment proceedings were completed on or after April 1, 1962, and further the procedure as contained in s. 273 of the new Act would apply to proceedings relating to penalty initiated in accordance with the provisions of s. 297(2)(g) of the new Act. Thus, the question that in a case like the present one, which relates to the assessment of tax for the year 1958-59, for which assessment proceedings were completed after April 1, 1962, s. 297(2)(g) would be attracted and penalty proceedings can be initiated in accordance with s. 271(1)(a) of the new Act and penalty shall be imposed under the said s. 271(1)(a) of the new Act. A further question which arises in this case, namely, whether in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....new Act, subject to the maximum prescribed thereunder should be imposed in a case which is squarely covered by the provisions of s. 271 (1)(a) of the new Act, on account of the provisions of s. 297(2)(g) of that Act. The same view was also taken in another case by the same Bench of this court in CIT v. Venichand Maganlal [1970] 78 ITR 120 (Raj), and it was observed that s. 271(1)(a) of the Act specifically provides for the quantum of penalty to be imposed within the specified limits, which means that the penalty cannot be less than that provided under the aforesaid section, of course, subject to the upper limit of 50% of the tax which has also been provided thereunder. The aforesaid view, which has been taken by this court, has also been ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndicate that the 'two per cent. ' specified therein was a reducible minimum. It appears to me that by using the expression 'equal to two per cent. ', the legislature has conveyed the same meaning as it conveyed by the use of the expression 'not less than', for, 'equal to', as already stated, in its dictionary meaning, means 'neither less nor more'." Again in Poorna Biscuit Factory v. CIT. [1975] 99 ITR 41 (AP), Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, following the view taken by this court in Venichand Maganlal's case [1970] 78 ITR 120 (Raj), observed that " a sum equal to " means identical and neither more nor less, and thus the ITO has no option in the matter of quantum of penalty imposable under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act once he comes to....