9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (5) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... answered on the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 1. The assessment year in question is 1967-68. The return for that year under the Act was filed on July 24, 1968. The assets shown in the return were valued at Rs. 1,20,430. The Wealth-tax Officer assessed the immovable properties at Rs. 3,37,000. The assessment was completed on October 25, 1968. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ober 24, 1970. The assessee sent a telegram for extension of time for complying with the notice. The prayer for adjournment was, however, rejected. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner thereafter imposed penalty upon the assessee. The assessee being aggrieved filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal conceded that this was pre-eminently a case where the penal provisions were attracted. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the quantum of penalty imposable in this case was to be governed by the law which was in force on the first day of the assessment year and not the amended law which came into effect from April 1, 1968 ? " The sum and substance of the question referred for the opinion of this court is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the quantum of penalty imposable in this case was to be gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the penalty under the Wealth-tax Act being the same as under the Income-tax Act, the exposition of law by the Supreme Court in regard to the case under the Income-tax Act must apply to a case under the Wealth-tax Act as well. In that view of the matter, the return of wealth having been filed on July 24, 1968, the law applicable on that date was the law which was in force on that date. It may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
