9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue reads thus : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the quantum of penalty leviable against the assessee in the present case should be computed under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it came to be amended with effect from 1st April, 1968, and not under the said provision as it stood prior to 1st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nclusion that the watches belonged to the assessee and had been illegally acquired by him after having been smuggled into India. The ITO noticed that this conclusion of the Collector of Customs had been accepted by the assessee. The ITO called upon the assessee to show how the 90 watches had been accounted for by him and to produce evidence that the other 180 watches had not belonged to him. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee was liable to pay the penalty. It held that the assessee had failed to disclose the fact of the income in the return which had been filed by him on June 30, 1964. It noticed the provisions of s. 271(1)(c), as they stood prior to April 1, 1968, when the minimum penalty leviable was 20 per cent of the tax which would have been avoided, and as they stood with effect from April 1, 1968, when th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is the law ruling at the date on which the act of concealment takes place which is relevant. In view of this, there can be no dispute that the Tribunal was right in holding that it was the law as it stood on June 30, 1964, when the act of concealment took place, which determined the quantum of penalty leviable upon the assessee. We answer the question in favour of the assessee. The Revenue sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
