1978 (11) TMI 94

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (1) (i) and enhancing the penalty determined for the default under s. 271(1) (a) of the Act. The assessee has brought to our notice the fact that a similar application made by the Revenue in the case of Smt. Eva Raha (M. P. No. 21 (Gau) & 22 (Gau) of 1974-75 in ITA Nos. 709 (Gau) & 710 (Gau) of 1972-73) was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dt. 6th March, 1975 by holding that the matter was n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... edings because there is nothing specific in the amending statute to indicate that the retrospective amendment will come into operation notwithstanding that the penalty proceedings had became final on appeal. The Appellant Tribunal following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.M. Shah(1) has held on an identical application in the case of Smt. Eva Raha that the issue was debatabl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vely and an amendment seeking to grant exemption retrospectively and we found that in that case there were clear indications of the intention of the Parliament to grant exemption under s. 10 (6) even though the limitation for making the assessments in respect of the earlier asst. yrs governed by the amendment had expired. On the other hand, this is a matter where the Revenue wants the penalty to b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X