9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction with effect from 1st April, 1976 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the basis of the material available on record, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no concealment of wealth and that no penalty under sec. 18(1)(c) was attracted in this case ? " The short facts material for answering the aforesaid questions are these The relevant assessment year is 1974-75. The assessee returned his " net wealth " at Rs. 84,211. In his return the assessee showed a debit balance of Rs. 40,609 against which he had deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000 with the Bank of Baroda, which he claimed was exempted. The WTO, vide his order of assessment dated September 22, 1974, on interpretation of s. 2(m)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IAC imposing penalty. On an application by the Department, the aforesaid questions have been referred to this court for answer. With regard to the first question, the contention was that in view of the amended s. 18(3), the WTO had the jurisdiction even regarding the amount, in respect of which penalty is imposable under cl. (c) of s., 18(1) of the Act, exceeded a sum of twenty-five thousand rupees; the IAC had no jurisdiction on the date lie imposed the penalty. The argument of the learned counsel for the assessee was that the jurisdiction of the IAC should be determined with reference to the law in force on the date of imposing the penalty. It is not necessary for us to dilate much on this point inasmuch as it is covered by the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) during the pendency of the reference. This amendment would not invalidate the pending reference. We may here state that Shri Jhanjhari, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted, relying on the decision of some other High Courts, that the decisions of this court [1983] 143 ITR 182 and [1980] 124 ITR 680, require reconsideration, but, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with his submission and we do not find any cogent reason for reconsideration of the matter and referring the matter to a larger Bench. We, thus answer the first question in the negative, that is, in favour of the Department and against the assessee. With regard to the second question, in the light of the finding of the Tribunal that factually there was no co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
