9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (3) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PAL SINGH. JUDGMENT The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, has referred the following two questions of law for our opinion : "(1) Whether the substantive law of penalties could be held to be retrospective in character even in the absence of a specific statement in the Act which renders it retrospective? (2) Whether the same substantive law as is operative from April 1, 1962, onwards is to be applied in respect of the offences committed prior to March 31, 1962 ?" The assessment year in question is 1961-62. A notice was issued under section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as " the 1922 Act "), which was served on 26th July, 1961, asking the assessee firm, Messrs. National Exhibitors, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforesaid two questions of law have been referred for our opinion. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that both these questions must be answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee. This has to be so in view of the Supreme Court decisions in lain Brothers v. Union of India and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Singh Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. The principal contention on behalf of the assessee is that in view of the provisions of section 297(2)(g) of the 1961 Act, the penalty though leviable under the 1961 Act (i.e., under section 271(1)), its quantum has to be determined under the 1922 Act, because the procedural law regarding penalty in the 1961 Act would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accordance with section 297(2)(g) of the new Act." In the end of the preceding paragraph, their Lordships observed: " Similarly, the provision of section 271 of the Act of 1961 will apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings relating to penalty initiated in accordance with section 297(2)(g) of that Act " It may be of interest to note that the learned judge, who spoke for the court in Jain Brothers' case , has made these observations. Therefore, we must proceed on the basis that section 271 of the 1961 Act will apply to the present case because the assessment was completed after 1st of April, 1962. There is no escape from this conclusion in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court already referred to. Thus, in view of the authoritative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
