1987 (1) TMI 53 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of whether the Income-tax Officer had the jurisdiction to levy a penalty of Rs. 15,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1970-71. The case originated from the concealment of income in the original return filed on July 28, 1970, and subsequent reassessment. The crux of the matter was whether the law prevailing at the time of filing the return or at the time of reassessment determined the authority to impose the penalty.

The assessee contended that the law in force on the date of filing the return should apply, necessitating the matter to be referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 274(2) of the Act. However, the Revenue argued that the crucial date for jurisdiction was the initiation of penal proceedings, not the date of the return. The amendment in 1970 raised the monetary limit for penalty imposition by the Income-tax Officer to Rs. 25,000.

The court referred to various precedents to resolve the issue. In Brij Mohan v. CIT, the Supreme Court held that the law at the time of the wrongful act determined the penalty. Additionally, in Addl. CIT v. Dr. Khaja Khutabuddinkhan, it was established that the date of concealment was crucial for determining the applicable law for penalty imposition.

The judgment highlighted cases such as Continental Commercial Corporation v. ITO and Addl. CIT v. M. Y. Chandragi, where the courts emphasized that the date of concealment, not the date of assessment or penalty order, determined the competent authority for penalty imposition. The court rejected the Madras High Court's view that the law at the time of filing the return governed all situations, emphasizing that the authority to levy penalty should be traced based on the law prevailing at the time of concealment detection, i.e., the assessment order date.

Ultimately, the court held in favor of the Revenue, affirming that the authority competent to levy penalty should be determined based on the law applicable at the time of concealment detection and initiation of penal proceedings, not the date of return filing.