9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (4) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter reopening of the assessment, a fresh assessment was made on 23rd October, 1962, that is, after the Income-tax Act, 1961, had come into force. After this assessment had become final, proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were started against the assessee for filing the return late. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the explanation given by the assessee and imposed a minimum penalty of 2% by virtue of the provisions of section 297(2)(g) of the Act of 1961. The appeal filed by the assessee was also dismissed, but on second appeal to the Tribunal, it was argued that section 297(2)(g) merely made the procedure of the 1961 Act applicable, but the quatum of penalty could be imposed unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee that clause (g) of section 297(2) is only a machinery provision for the initiation of proceedings for the imposition of penalty and is not a provision for the imposition of penalty under the 1961 Act. The language of clause (g) is very clear and distinctly says that any proceeding for the imposition of penalty in respect of the assessment year referred to in the clause may be initiated and any such penalty may be imposed under the 1961 Act. To construe the clause as empowering only the initiation of proceedings for the imposition of penalty and not the imposition of penalty itself under the 1961 Act is to render altogether nugatory the words 'any such penalty may be imposed under this Act' occurring in that clause." A similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompleted after first day of April, 1962, the proceedings have to be initiated and the penalty imposed in accordance with the provisions of section 271 of the Act of 1961." In view of the above authorities, there is no doubt that the imposition of penalty in this case had to be according to the provisions of section 271(1)(a) which provides a minimum of 2% in the case of delayed filing of return. The Income-tax Officer had imposed this minimum penalty and, consequently, the Tribunal had no power to interfere with that imposition of penalty and to reduce it below the minimum. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to this court as follows : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not competent to reduce th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
