9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Applicability of Section 271(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before its amendment with effect from April 1, 1968. 2. Determination of the date of commission of the offense of concealment of income. 3. Whether filing multiple returns for the same assessment year constitutes multiple offenses. 4. Applicability of the doctrine of double jeopardy in the context of multiple returns. 5. Interpretation of the penalty provisions under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Applicability of Section 271(1)(iii) Before Its Amendment The primary issue was whether the provisions of Section 271(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they existed before their amendment effective from April 1, 1968, were applicable to the present case. The Tribunal held that the penalty provisions as existing before April 1, 1968, were applicable since the original return was filed before this date. The Tribunal fixed the penalty at 30% of the tax sought to be avoided based on the income finally determined in the appeal. 2. Determination of the Date of Commission of the Offense of Concealment The court noted that the concealment of income takes place when a return concealing the particulars of income or giving inaccurate particulars of income is filed. The offense of concealment is committed when the return is filed, and not when the true income is sought to be concealed by omitting to file a return. The court emphasized that the concealment of income in the original return filed on April 21, 1967, attracted the penalty provisions as they existed before April 1, 1968. 3. Multiple Returns for the Same Assessment Year The court discussed whether filing multiple returns for the same assessment year constituted multiple offenses. It was observed that an assessee is required under compulsion of law to file a return under Section 139(1) and (2) and under Section 148. The court concluded that every time an assessee files a false return, either voluntarily or under statutory compulsion, he commits a separate and distinct offense of concealment of income, punishable separately. 4. Doctrine of Double Jeopardy The court addressed the applicability of the doctrine of double jeopardy, which prevents a person from being punished twice for the same offense. The court clarified that if an assessee files multiple false returns, each constitutes an independent offense of concealment. Therefore, the doctrine of double jeopardy does not apply as each offense is distinct and punishable separately. 5. Interpretation of Penalty Provisions The court interpreted the penalty provisions under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, emphasizing that the concealment of income in the return filed by the assessee attracts the penalty. The court held that the penalty provisions applicable at the time of filing the original return govern the imposition of penalty. The court found that the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee had committed only one offense of concealment when it filed the original return and in imposing a penalty computable in accordance with the unamended provisions of Section 271(1)(c)(iii) of the Act. Separate Judgments Delivered Majority Judgment The majority view, held by G.C. Mittal J. and S.S. Sandhawalia C.J., concluded that the provisions of Section 271(1)(iii) as they existed before April 1, 1968, applied to the case. They emphasized that the date of filing the original return should govern the law for imposing the penalty. The majority held that the offense of concealment is complete when the original return is filed, and subsequent returns do not constitute new offenses. Minority Judgment D.S. Tewatia J. dissented, holding that the assessee committed separate offenses by filing multiple false returns, each punishable separately. He concluded that the penalty should be computed based on the law applicable at the time of filing the return in response to the notice under Section 148. Conclusion In accordance with the majority view, it was held that the provisions of Section 271(1)(iii) of the Act, as they existed before their amendment effective from April 1, 1968, were applicable to the case. The answer to the question referred for the court's opinion was rendered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The assessee was entitled to costs.
|
