9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Department and the matter is subjudice before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not correctly interpreting the Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not correctly interpreting the law that the Explanation 5 of section 271(1)(c) is procedural in nature and thus retrospective, as has been held in the case of CIT v. Parmanand Advani [1979] 119 ITR 464 (Pat.) 4. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 will not have retrospective effect and will not be applicable in this case. Therefore, this finding of the Id. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concealment of assets but the WTO levied penalty on 31-8-1989. The WTO held that Explanation 5 to section 18(1)(c) inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 with effect from 1-10-1984 was procedural and retrospective. According to him, the material date for applicability of Explanation 5 to section 18(1)(c) was not the date of filing of the return to the satisfaction of the WTO about the concealed income. For this conclusion, the WTO has relied on cases incorporated in the order levying penalty under section 271(1)(c). In appeal before the CIT(Appeals), Kanpur, the CIT vide order dated 30-3-1989 allowed the assessee's appeal and he held that there was nothing in the Act to suggest that the provisions of Explanation 5 to section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ature would have clearly laid down in the amending section itself. That being not so, we do not agree with the Revenue in their argument that it is merely procedural or that it is retrospective. Lastly, this view has been held by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 101, 103,104,107,109 & 110 (All.)/1987 dated 6-4-1990. In this view of the matter, the departmental appeal has to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. Before closing the matter, it will be relevant to say a few words about the reliance of learned Departmental Representative in the case of Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330 (SC). We have gone through this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We find that this case does not help the Revenue at all. This Supreme Court ruling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
