9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Sant Singh, was called upon to file the return for the assessment year 1958-59 under s. 22(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The return should have been filed on or before October 3, 1958. The return was, however, filed on August 14, 1962. The assessment was completed under s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on February 28, 1963. A demand of Rs. 15,739 was resulted. Simultaneously , with the pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e determined bearing in mind that the default was committed at a time when the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was in force. In their view, therefore, the penalty imposable should be commensurate with the penalty imposable when that Act was in force. They, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 only and directed a refund of the excess amount to the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax has come on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of default was prior to April 1, 1962 the penalty referable to that period at least should be reduced, cannot be supported in view of the decision of this court in CIT v. Maya Rani Punj [1973] 92 ITR 394, which directly deals with a situation similar to that in the present case. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court and of this court we have to answer the question referred to us by sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tood at the time of imposition of the penalty or on the date when the infringement took place. The courts held that the provision of law to be applicable would depend upon the date on which the infringement took place. This principle is unexceptionable and in fact has recently been laid down by the Supreme Court also in the case of Brij Mohan [1979] 120 ITR 1. But in the present case no controvers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
