9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er did not have jurisdiction to pass the order dated March 30, 1979, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and so his order is not sustainable in the eye of law?" The background facts as indicated by the Tribunal in the statement of the case drawn up by it are as follows : The assessee-firm was carrying on the business of executing civil contract works. It submitted its return of income for the assessment year 1974-75 on December 31, 1974, disclosing an income of Rs. 1,77,083, accompanied by a statement showing the gross receipts from contract works at Rs. 21,28,775. A certificate from the Executive Engineer, R. E. Division, Kalahandi, showing gross receipts of Rs. 10,30,876, and deduction therefrom for materials supplied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly, the assessment was completed on November 19, 1976, on a total income of Rs. 3,34,610 as against Rs. 1,77,083 declared by the assessee. A proceeding under section 271(1)(c) for the aforesaid discrepancy was initiated and it was observed that there was concealment of the gross receipts and the consequential income. Against the assessment made, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Orissa, who dismissed the appeal. The assessee carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. The quantum of concealment of income was determined at Rs. 84,502 by the Tribunal. In the penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c), after consideration of objections, penalty of Rs. 1,20,000 was imposed by an order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, with effect from April 1, 1971. There was a further change in section 271(1)(c) in clause (iii) by the Finance Act, 1968, with effect from April 1, 1968. Prior to the amendment, the penalty leviable was with reference to a certain percentage of the tax sought to be avoided by concealment of the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. With a view to make the provisions more deterrent, the quantum was fixed with reference to the amount of concealment. There was an amendment to sub-section (2) of section 274 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. Sub-section (2) was omitted by the said Amendment Act with effect from April 1, 1976, and the Inspecting Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(1)(c). Emphasis on this aspect was made with reference to a decision of the apex court in Brij Mohan v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 1. The Tribunal did not accept the plea primarily on the ground that, while Brij Mohan's case [1979] 120 ITR I (SC) dealt with a substantive provision relating to imposition of penalty, the question as to who had jurisdiction to impose penalty related to procedure. When penalty is imposed for the concealment of particulars of income, it is the law ruling at the date on which the act of concealment takes place which is relevant. It is wholly immaterial that the income concealed was to be assessed in relation to an assessment year in the past. Penalty is imposed on account of commission of a wrongful act and it is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
