9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid question reads as follows : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the measure of penalty leviable for the assessment year 1961-62 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in this case was according to the law as it stood on April 1, 1961, or according to the law as it stood amended with effect from April 1, 1968 ?" The assessment year with which we are conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Commissioner reduced the estimate of profits to 30 per cent. and determined the total income at Rs. 17,091. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner levied a penalty on the assessee of Rs. 17,091 under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the Explanation thereto. It is common ground that up to March 31, 1968, the minimum quantum of penalty which could be levi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his decision of the Tribunal that the aforesaid question has been referred to us. It is not disputed before us that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 1, the penalty in this case will have to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the said clause (c) as amended with effect from April 1, 1968. It may be mentioned that by the said decision, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s aforesaid, in this case the amount of penalty should be reduced, as the case was one which deserves sympathetic consideration. He pointed out that the total income which was found to be concealed was only Rs. 17,091 and that the entire tax payable on this amount came to Rs. 1,489, as pointed out by the Tribunal. It was submitted by him that this case is that of a small assessee and the penalty i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
