9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (4) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee had submitted the revised returns for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 was correct in law ? " Since, for the reasons stated hereafter, we are remitting the matter to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, we do not consider it necessary to set out the facts in detail. The assessee, a registered partnership firm, filed its return of income for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 on 31st July, 1968, and 31st March, 1971, respectively. The assessee filed revised returns for the said assessment years on 9th November, 1971, under s. 139(5) of the Act showing additional income for the said assessment years. The ITO substantially accepted the income returned in the revised returns and framed the assessments accordingly for the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able under the Wealth-tax Act. A minimum penalty of an amount equal to the value of the asset so concealed or to the extent of understatement in the value of an asset or understatement in the value of any debt, is prescribed. This penalty can be as high as twice this amount. In addition, there can be prosecution and conviction with rigorous imprisonment for not less than six months extendable to two years. Furnishing inaccurate particulars of any gift is punishable with a sum of not less than 20% but not more than one and a half times of the tax which would have been avoided if the return had been accepted as correct. Apart from this, you can be prosecuted. Conviction can mean simple imprisonment extendable to one year or with fine up to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his circular of the Board before deciding the question of levying penalty under s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act. We see no reason to doubt the statement made by the counsel for the assessee that a request for abstaining from imposing penalty in the context of the above instructions was in fact made. In our opinion, the Tribunal ought to have considered the question as regards the legality and propriety of levying penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the light of the instructions given by the Board in the advertisement referred to above. Whether or not it amounted to promissory estoppel and created a legal right apart, the question was required to be examined from the standpoint of the credibility of the department. Would it not cause greater h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
