9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September 30, 1965) and also in the revised returns filed on January 2, 1970, and January 7, 1970 (i.e., after April 1, 1968), the quantum of penalty to be levied should be as per the amended provisions of section 271(1)(iii) brought into effect from April 1, 1968 ? " M/s. Rameswar Co., Zaheerabad, is a registered firm, the assessee, constituted with fifteen partners. The assessee carried on the business of excise contracts and for the assessment year 1965-66, the accounting year of the firm ended on September 30, 1964. Two returns on September 30, 1965, were lodged for assessment year 1965-66, because of change in the constitution of the firm in that accounting year. One return related to the period for October 1, 1963, to July 9, 1964 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn with correct particulars was lodged by the firm on January 31, 1970. This contention was tenuous and was in the orders stated and rejected. The assessee was found to have " concealed " the income in its four returns and was held guilty of the offence. The firm was ordered to pay Rs. 20,000. The amount of penalty thus ordered was little more than the minimum of the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as amended by the Finance Act of 1968. The appellate authority and also the Appellate Tribunal affirmed the order of the ITO on aspects touching the concealment but as to the provision under which the penalty to be imposed, the two authorities construed the facts to hold that when original returns were lodged on September 30, 1965, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not a question of jurisdiction. " To sum up this part of the case, on the facts in the instant case, the original and in the revised returns the facts shown were held to be " identical ". The assessee was guilty on a single count and the offence in that sense was committed on September 30, 1965. This court on August 25, 1976, pointed out as to when the offence of concealment had occurred in its opinion in a reference reported in Addl. CIT v. Dr. Khaja Khutabuddinkhan [1978] 114 ITR 905, to which one of us (Raghuvir J.) was a party and in that case as the offence occurred from the standpoint of occurrence the law obtained on the date of occurrence was held to govern the imposition of penalty. The other High Courts had taken similar view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls, which include the authorities under Act 43 of 1961, have ample discretion to consider the circumstances before a penalty is levied, for, such are the incidents of penalty proceedings. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC), a case under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 14 of 1947, the Supreme Court observed (p. 29): An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged, either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct, contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
