1977 (8) TMI 54 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of penalty imposable under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Application of pre-amendment law vs. amended provision in penalty proceedings.
3. Determination of the law applicable for penalty calculation based on the timing of the initiation of penalty proceedings.

Analysis:
The High Court of Orissa addressed the issue of penalty imposable under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved an assessee who filed a return for the assessment year 1965-66 but later had the assessment reopened, leading to the imposition of a penalty. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 13,500 based on undisclosed income. The question arose whether the penalty should be calculated based on the law in force when the return was filed or the law amended in 1968, which increased the quantum of penalty.

The court considered the timing of the initiation of penalty proceedings in determining the applicable law for penalty calculation. The assessee argued for the application of the pre-amendment law, citing a Madras High Court decision, while the standing counsel relied on a previous Orissa High Court decision. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Jain Brothers v. Union of India, emphasizing that penalty proceedings are initiated upon the assessing authority's satisfaction of income concealment during assessment completion.

The court held that the law applicable to the penalty proceeding is the one in force at the time the Income-tax Officer directed the initiation of penalty proceedings. Since the reassessment was completed in August 1971, the amended provision increasing the penalty amount applied to the case. Therefore, the court concluded that the penalty amount should be calculated based on the law in force when the penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

In conclusion, the High Court answered the question by stating that the penalty imposable should be worked out based on the law in force at the time the Income-tax Officer directed the initiation of penalty proceedings. No costs were awarded in the judgment, and both judges, K. B. Panda and R. N. Mishra, concurred with the decision.