9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for our answer : " (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maya Rani Punj, the penalty for default under section 18(1)(a) was required to be computed in accordance with the provisions of amended law even in respect of default for the period prior to the amendment made with effect from April 1, 1976 ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in not considering that the default of nonsubmission of return continues from month to month ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that it is not pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of the unamended provisions. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeals on applying the ratio of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330 reduced the penalty holding that the amended law was to be applied for computing the quantum of the penalty. The Tribunal agreed with the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the order, the Commissioner filed the application under section 27(1) of the Act which was rejected. The Commissioner thereafter filed the application under section 27(3) of the Act. In Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 296 of 1988, the assessee is Smt. H. H. Pushpamala Raje Puar, Dewas. The assessment year is 1973-74. The return was filed late. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt/assessee, in Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 297, 298 and 296 of 1988. We have also heard Shri B. K. Joshi, learned counsel for the non-applicant/assessee, in the remaining miscellaneous civil cases. Section 18(1)(a) provides for imposition of penalty in case of failure to furnish the return in time. Clause (i) was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976, which provides as under : " (i) in the cases referred to in clause (a), in addition to the amount of wealth-tax, if any, payable by him, a sum equal to two per cent. of the assessed tax for every month during which the default continued. " We noticed that these three questions were sought to be referred by the Tribunal under section 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plain and simple that the penalty is leviable in accordance with law prevalent on the date of initiation of penalty proceedings. We, therefore, decline to make a reference." We find that the method of computation of default is procedural in nature and the orders of the Tribunal are based on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330 (SC). The Tribunal rejected the applications on the conclusion that there were no referable questions. In C. Beepathuma v. Velasari Shankaranarayana Kadambolithaya, AIR 1965 SC 241, 245, it is held that "there is no doubt that the law of limitation is a procedural law and the provisions existing on the date of the suit apply to it. The suit was filed in 1944 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
