1980 (2) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty proceedings having been referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax on February 22, 1971, i.e., prior to the amendment of section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, w.e.f. April 1, 1971, section 275 as it stood prior to its amendment Was ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urate particulars of his income and the IAC accordingly imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,524 by his order dated 15th March, 1973. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It was contended on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal that tinder s. 275 of the Act an order imposing penalty could be passed by the IAC after the expiry of a period of two years from 22nd .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he period of limitation for imposing a penalty, was amended with effect from lst April, 1971. It is not disputed that if the amended provision is applicable in the instant case, then the imposition of penalty could not be held to be barred by time. It has been held by the Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka and Orissa High Courts in Hargu Charan Srivastava v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 622 (All) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X