9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Rate of penalty applicable to the petitioner's case. Analysis: The petitioner, a firm, filed its return for the assessment year 1964-65 on August 10, 1964. The Income-tax Officer requested a duplicate return, which was filed on February 12, 1969. The total income was computed at Rs. 80,731, including Rs. 40,000 added under "Income from undisclosed sources." A penalty of Rs. 50,000 was imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, applying amended provisions effective from April 1, 1968. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, and subsequent appeals were rejected. The petitioner challenged the rate of penalty applied in computing the minimum penalty. The petitioner argued that the amended provisions of section 271(1)(c)(iii) could not be applied as the original return was filed on August 10, 1964, and the duplicate return on February 12, 1969. The authorities levied the penalty based on the duplicate return date, citing the amended provision effective from April 1, 1968. However, the court held that the offence of concealment occurred when the original return was filed, not when the duplicate return was submitted. Precedents like CIT v. Champlal Jain and CIT v. Bankim Chandra Dutt supported this view, emphasizing the law applicable at the time of the offence. The Supreme Court in Brij Mohan v. CIT also affirmed this principle, stating that the law in force at the time of concealment governs penalty imposition. The court ruled that the rate of penalty should align with the law in effect when the concealment act took place, i.e., when the original return was filed on August 10, 1964. The amendment affecting penalty quantum was substantive, not procedural. Therefore, the penalty should be determined based on the law at the time of the offence. The court allowed the application, making the rule absolute, and directed the officer to recompute the penalty based on the provisions existing on the date of filing the original return. The petitioner was barred from further appeals or revisions under the Act against the recomputation. No costs were awarded, and a copy of the order was provided to the petitioner's advocate.
|
