9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether, 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 concerned is the assessment year 1961-6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te 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 levied in a case of concealment of part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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, the Supreme Court held that when p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount 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 imposed is very heavy. We are af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
