9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, 1966, declaring income of Rs. 1,971. The assessment originally came to be made on March 17, 1969, whereby the total income was determined at Rs. 92,462. Penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as " the Act ") were initiated at the time of completing the assessment. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order which was accepted and the AAC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nimum penalty imposable exceeded Rs. 1,000, the matter was referred to the IAC. The IAC held that the Expln. to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was applicable. He, therefore, levied a penalty of Rs. 5,000. The Tribunal, in appeal, held that the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was exigible. The quantum of penalty was, however, reduced to Rs. 3,000. At the instance of the assessee, the following question of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AAC. On fresh assessment order having been passed and, ultimately, the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that there was concealment of income, the initiation of the penalty proceedings on the basis of the fresh assessment order cannot be held to be without jurisdiction. The provisions of s. 271(1) are wide enough to include any type of proceedings under the Act which may include the proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
