9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (12) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been referred to us for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalties of Rs. 24,671 and Rs. 24,388 levied under section 271(1)(a) for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 ? " There is no dispute that the assessee did commit default in terms of section 271(1)(a) and (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "). The Income-tax Officer, for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, finally assessed the assessee on 29th March, 1967. The total income assessed was Rs. 1,01,712 and Rs. 98,035, respectively. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) and 271(1)(c) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e asked to complete the assessment for the year 1960-61 expeditiously and also to check up whether the assessee derived any income from interest and property during the assessment year 1963-64 liable to be taxed in his hands. 3. In his petition the counsel of the assessee, Shri Bal Raj Kohli, has expressed his desire to meet the Commissioner of Income-tax before his application for settlement is decided. The Commissioner of Income-tax has desired that you may please explain the above position to the assessee and seek his agreement. The assessee's reaction to the above proposal may then be communicated to this office. " The assessee conveyed his acceptance of the decision to the Income-tax Officer, vide annexure " C " dated 14th January, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nefit of doubt. The silence of the Commissioner should be considered in favour of the subject, particularly in view of the express mention of one kind of penalty and silence about the others. The penalty is deleted." The department, being dissatisfied, has asked the Tribunal to refer the question of law, already set out, for our opinion. Before we proceed to answer the question, it will be advisable to refer to section 271 of the Act. The scheme of the section is this : that sub-section (1) creates three offences in clauses (a), (b) and (c) and penalty for them is provided in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii). Sub-section (4A) of section 271 of the Act deals with the powers of the Commissioner and is in the following terms: " (4A) Notwiths ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt assessment year, or, where such disclosure relates to more than one assessment year, the aggregate of the minimum penalty imposable under the said clause for those years, exceeds a sum of fifty thousand rupees, or (ii) if in a case falling under clause (c) of sub-section (1) the amount of income in respect of which penalty is imposable for the relevant assessment year, or, where such disclosure relates to more than one assessment year, the aggregate amount of such income for those years, exceeds a sum of five hundred thousand rupees, no order reducing or waiving the penalty shall be made by the Commissioner unless the previous approval of the Board has been obtained. Vide sub-section (4B) of section 271 of the Act, which is in the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
