1971 (3) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalties could not be imposed under secion 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The assessee is a partnership firm. It filed voluntary returns of its income for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 on April 5, 1962. The returns should have been filed under section 22(1), Indian Income-tax Act, 192 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... educed to 40% of the tax leviable upon the assessee. The assessee then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and reiterated the contention that the power to impose the penalties should be found in the Act of 1922 and was not contained in the Act of 1961, inasmuch as the default by the assessee was committed with reference to section 22(1) of the Act of 1922. It was urged that section 271 s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urns were filed after April 1, 1962, and any assessment proceeding taken by the Income-tax Officer could be taken only after that date. There is nothing to show that the assessment proceeding in respect of the two years was completed before April 1, 1962. A similar question arose before the Supreme Court in Jain Brothers v. Union of India and that court held that, upon the terms of section 297(2)( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X