1979 (10) TMI 48 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the minimum penalty imposable under s. 271(1)(c)(iii) of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 1965-66.
2. Jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose penalty under s. 271(1)(c) based on the amount of concealed income.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute regarding the minimum penalty imposable for the assessment year 1965-66 under s. 271(1)(c)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee, initially considered an employee, was later deemed a partner in a firm. The penalty proceedings were initiated by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) due to the amount exceeding Rs. 1,000. The IAC imposed a penalty of Rs. 9,000 based on the amended provisions of s. 271(1)(c)(iii) effective from April 1, 1968. The Tribunal held that the IAC lacked jurisdiction due to the amended s. 274(2) from April 1, 1971, which raised the threshold to Rs. 25,000. However, the High Court, relying on precedents, concluded that the penalty quantum is determined by the law in force when the penalty is incurred. The Supreme Court's decision in Brij Mohan v. CIT further supported this interpretation, holding the penalty is based on the law at the time of concealment.

Issue 2:
The second question raised concerns the jurisdiction of the IAC to impose a penalty under s. 271(1)(c) based on the amount of concealed income. The amendment to s. 274(2) in 1971 raised the threshold to Rs. 25,000 for the ITO to refer cases to the IAC. The High Court analyzed the effect of the amendment on pending references and held that the IAC retained jurisdiction if the reference was validly made before April 1, 1971. The court emphasized that a change in forum does not affect pending actions unless expressly provided. Citing legal precedents, the court concluded that the IAC's jurisdiction is derived from a valid reference by the ITO, and the amendment did not invalidate pending references. The court disagreed with the views of other High Courts, maintaining that the timing of the reference determines the IAC's jurisdiction to impose a penalty.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the department on both issues, affirming that the penalty is determined by the law at the time of concealment and that the IAC retains jurisdiction if the reference was validly made before the amendment to s. 274(2). The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing penalty imposition and jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the significance of the timing of events in determining legal consequences.