1976 (8) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s were concerned. But he seems to succeed in warding off a penalty for such concealment because the ITO who was quite vigilant to detect concealment was not so vigilant enough to make sure about his competency to punish the culprit. 2. As reads the fact of concealment we are quite sure and satisfied that there is concealment. The revised return furnished to the assessee's advantage on 25th Marc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case. It is by now well-settled that the law to the applied with regard to imposition of penalty for concealment is the law as it prevailed on the day (Unless it be procedural law) on which the concealment took place, i.e., the date on which the return was furnished and not the law as it stood on the first day of the assessment year to which the concealment relates or the law as on the day the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the Departmental Representative that the law as to who should impose penalty is only procedural in nature, that it is only the quantum of penalty that is substantive in nature and that, therefore, on the relevant date on which penalty proceedings were initiated or the ITO came to satisfy about concealment, he had and it is he only who had, the jurisdiction to impose the penalty in case where the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X