9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring a total income of Rs. 10,250. Since the assessee did not appear, the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment ex parte by estimating the income of Rs. 25,250. He initiated penalty proceedings and referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner gave notice to the assessee but the latter failed to appear. The Inspecting Assistant Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded after April 1, 1968. He held that the amendment could not apply to assessment years prior to the coming into force of the amendment, although the return of income had been filed after the amendment had commenced operation. For this view he relied upon a decision of Hajee K. Assainar v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1971] 81 ITR 423 (Ker). It was ultimately held that the Inspecting Assistant Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is 1966-67, the return for which was filed on 10th of March, 1969. The observation of the Tribunal that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has considered the Explanation as amended on April 1, 1968, does not appear to be correct. The Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was never amended. It is clause (iii) of the section itself which was amended with effect from 1st of April, 1968. Previously clau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the law prevailing on the first day of April of that year does not apply to penalty proceedings, as penalty proceedings are not part of the assessment proceedings. The law which will apply to penalty proceedings will be the law as it stands on the day on which the default is committed. In cases of concealment or of furnishing inaccurate particulars, the date of such a default will be the date on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
