TMI Blog1972 (4) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me-tax. The assessee filed a return in respect of the assessment year 1960-61 on 2nd August, 1961. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on 13th March, 1962, but on the application of the assessee itself, this order was set aside and the assessment reopened. After reopening of the assessment, a fresh assessment was made on 23rd October, 1962, that is, after the Income-tax Act, 1961, had come into force. After this assessment had become final, proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were started against the assessee for filing the return late. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the explanation given by the assessee and imposed a minimum penalty of 2% by virtue of the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2)(g) of the 1961 Act merely prescribed the procedure under the new Act and penalty had to be imposed under the old Act of 1922. Dealing with that argument, it was observed at page 289 as follows : " We are unable to accept the contention advanced by learned counsel for the assessee that clause (g) of section 297(2) is only a machinery provision for the initiation of proceedings for the imposition of penalty and is not a provision for the imposition of penalty under the 1961 Act. The language of clause (g) is very clear and distinctly says that any proceeding for the imposition of penalty in respect of the assessment year referred to in the clause may be initiated and any such penalty may be imposed under the 1961 Act. To construe the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (g) governs the case. Both sections 271(1) and 297(2)(g) have to be read together and in harmony and so read the only conclusion possible is that for the imposition of a penalty in respect of any assessment for the year ending on March 31, 1962, or any earlier year which is completed after first day of April, 1962, the proceedings have to be initiated and the penalty imposed in accordance with the provisions of section 271 of the Act of 1961." In view of the above authorities, there is no doubt that the imposition of penalty in this case had to be according to the provisions of section 271(1)(a) which provides a minimum of 2% in the case of delayed filing of return. The Income-tax Officer had imposed this minimum penalty and, consequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
