9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred under section 256 of the Income-tax Act : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the penalty of Rs. 12,200 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1961-62 is illegal ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The firm submitted a return in respect of the assessment year 1961-62 on August 20, 1961, and the individual partner submitted his return on April 9, 1960, November 10, 1960, and August 30, 1961, for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62, respectively. The assessments under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were made on February 29, 1964. Thereafter, penalty proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e quashed. The Tribunal also held that the penalties levied were not excessive. Subsequent to the decision of the Tribunal, the Supreme Court in Jain Brothers v. Union of India [1970] 77 ITR 107 has held that even in respect of concealment prior to the assessment year 1962-63, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) were applicable. In the words of the Supreme Court---See [1970] 77 ITR 107, 117 : " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings have to be initiated and the penalty imposed in accordance with the provisions of section 271 of the Act of 1961. Thus the assessee would be liable to a penalty as provided by section 271(1) for the default mentioned in section 28(1) of the Act of 1922 if his case falls within the terms of section 297(2)(g)." This decision directly answers all the questions referred to us in favour of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling of the returns. Therefore, the general principle decided in Muthukumaraswami Mudaliar's case [1975] 98 ITR 540 (Mad) is not applicable and the decision of the Supreme Court is the direct authority against the contention of the assessees. We accordingly answer all the questions in the negative and in favour of the revenue. Revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250. - - Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
