9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue - - - - - Dated:- 8-4-2005 - Judge(s) : R. K. AGRAWAL., RAJES KUMAR. JUDGMENT The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for opinion to this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the decision of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the penalties of Rs. 9,800 each in the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 imposed under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" The reference relates to the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that prior to April 1, 1989, i.e., before the amendment of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act, reassessment proceeding cannot be treated as regular assessment. The Tribunal has upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee. Learned standing counsel submitted that in view of the amendment made to sub-section (8) of section 139 of the Act by insertion of Explanation 2 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, with effect from April 1, 1985, even an assessment made for the first time under section 147 is to be treated as regular assessment. A similar provision has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty is to be determined by treating the return filed by such person to have been accepted as the correct income and the quantum of penalty valued at 10 per cent, to 50 per cent. In the present case, the respondent has not filed any return of income, the question of treating the income returned by her as the correct income and the quantification of penalty under clause (ii) does not arise and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rightly set aside the penalty imposed. Reliance placed by learned standing counsel on the decision of the apex court in the case of K. Govindan and Sons [2001] 247 ITR 192 is misconceived inasmuch as in the present case, the quantum of penalty is not referable to the regular assessment at all. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
