9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (9) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by TENDOLKAR, J.--This reference raises a very short question of law and it is: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income- tax Officer can calculate penalty on the basis of the return filed by the assessee on 28th September, 1953, under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act?" The facts are that the assessee is a firm and for the assessment year 1953-54 for whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee went to the Tribunal and the Tribunal while agreeing with the conclusion of the Income-tax authorities that a penalty was leviable, held that the penalty should be calculated on the basis of the revised return of the 18th of October, 1953, which had been accepted by the Income-tax Officer and which would result in the penalty being nil. The contention of the Income-tax Commissioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in considering what tax has been avoided?" To begin with the words are "as returned"; and they appear to us to be capable of only one meaning, namely, that it is the return in respect of which the penalty is imposed. This conclusion is strengthened by the words that follow which are "if the income as returned by such person had been accepted as the correct income." The i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that it is the second return that was to be taken into account for determining the quantum of penalty which led to the result that the penalty was nil that the Tribunal did not apply their mind to the quantum of penalty. That no doubt may be true. Then Mr. Palkhivala says that we should, therefore, send this matter back to the Tribunal for determining that question. We do not find any power in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
