9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (7) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der s. 148 on 6th April, 76. The ITO completed the reassessment on 12th May, 76 by inclusion of the escaped income and initiated proceedings under s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 4. In the course of penalty proceedings the assessee explained that there was no concealment on his part as he informed his Income Tax Layer about all the sources of his income but the said lawyer, through oversight, prepared the return on the basis of earlier year and thus he excluded the particular source of income in the original return. This explanation of the assessee did not find favour of the ITO. He, therefore, imposed penalty of an amount equal to the income that was found to have been concealed by the assessee. 5. On appeal before the AAC it was urged on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also hold that the error committed by the ITO in applying the old law will not ab-initio vitiate the entire penalty proceedings, particularly when there is no dispute regarding the concealment of particulars of income as per the original return and when the concealment is established in the terms of the substantive provisions of s.271 (1) (c), which remains as before." 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion the AAC worked out the minimum penalty at Rs. 2,914 but he deemed it proper to maintain penalty of Rs. 3,000 in this case. 7. Against that order of the AAC, the Department has preferred the present appeal while the assessee filed Cross-Objection. It was contended by the learned Departmental Representative that the AAC was wrong in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordance with the law in force at the time when the satisfaction of the ITO for levy of penalty is reached. We have, therefore, no hesitation in concurring with the view taken by AAC as to the applicability in this case. 9. Coming to the assessee's Cross-Objection we are unable to accede to the submission of the assessee's counsel that the ITO mechanically imposed penalty. It is clear from the order that he has considered the explanation given by the assessee before levy of penalty. The explanation of the assessee did not find favour with the ITO because (even before the assessee's counsel fairly admitted before us) there was no evidence to support the correctness of that explanation. We, therefore, hold that the penalty was exigible in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
