9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Determining factor for applying the law relating to imposition of penalty in case of concealment of income. Analysis: The judgment involved three cases concerning the imposition of penalties in cases of concealment of income by doctors for different assessment years. The common question of law was the determining factor for applying the penalty law. The Tribunal had referred a question regarding the correctness of imposing minimum penalty with reference to the amended law. The cases involved different assessment years, and penalties were imposed based on concealment of income. In the first case, the assessee, a doctor, had filed a return for the assessment year 1973-74, showing professional income and salary income. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings and imposed a penalty for concealment of income. The Tribunal directed computation of minimum penalty according to the amended law in existence on the date of the penalty order. In the other two cases, the assessee, also a doctor, had filed revised statements for different assessment years, showing discrepancies in income. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income based on information received about consultation fees. Penalties were imposed for both assessment years, and the Tribunal reduced the quantum of penalty based on an amendment in the penalty law effective from April 1, 1976. The judgment discussed the legislative changes in penalty laws over time, emphasizing the importance of the 1976 amendment, which provided relief to the assessees. The key argument revolved around whether the penalty should be determined based on the law at the time of the offense or at the time of penalty imposition. The judgment cited various High Court decisions supporting the application of the law prevailing at the time of the offense for penalty determination. The judgment highlighted that penalties are of a penal nature and must be determined based on the law at the time of the offense. It referenced Article 20 of the Constitution, ensuring that penalties do not exceed what was applicable at the time of the offense. The judgment also rejected the argument that the amendment should apply retrospectively, emphasizing that the law in force at the time of the offense should govern penalty imposition. Ultimately, the Court held that the penalty should be determined based on the law prevailing at the time of the offense, not at the time of penalty imposition. The Tribunal's decision to apply the amended law for penalty computation was deemed incorrect. The judgment concluded without awarding costs to any party. The judges, H. L. Agarwal and K. P. Mohapatra, both concurred with the decision.
|
