9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the opinion of this court in relation to the assessment year 1974-75 : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in holding that the penalty should be levied by applying the provisions of section 271(1)(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended with effect from April 1, 1976 ? (2) Whether the date of decision of the aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the aforesaid sum of Rs. 18,822, upon conclusion of the penalty proceedings the original authority imposed minimum penalty of Rs. 18,822 which was equal to the income concealed applying the law prevailing on the date of filing of the return. The appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the original authority imposing the penalty. On further appeal being taken, the Tribunal modified the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this court in the case of CWT v. Dalip Kumar Worah [1987] 167 ITR 811, it has been laid down that in a case where there was concealment of income in the return, the law which was in force on the date of initiation of penalty proceedings shall govern the same. It appears that in none of the aforesaid two cases, it was a case of concealment of income but it was a case of late filing of the return. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n referred to. Therefore, the ratio of the decision in the case of M. N. Chatterjee [1988] 170 ITR 87 (Patna), laying down contrary law is per incuriam and consequently the same is not binding upon this Bench. In the present case, the return was undisputedly filed on September 13, 1974, and the amended law came into force with effect from April 1, 1976. Therefore, we have no difficulty in holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
