9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (7) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded that before March 31, 1963, he had filed a return of the income assessable for the year of assessment 1963-64. The only return available in the records of the case was the one filed by him on September 8, 1966. This return related to the income that is to be assessed for the year 1963-64 is not disputed. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that this is the only return and this assumption is not questioned before us either. The amount of income disclosed by the return dated September 8, 1966, was only Rs. 13,764. The assessment was completed and the total income was fixed at Rs. 65,570. The income returned was, therefore, less than 80 per cent. of the total income assessed. So it was urged before the Tribunal by the department that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion of the Explanation being retrospective in case it is applied to an act or omission committed after the coming into force of the Explanation. The only question is whether the act or omission took place after the Explanation was introduced in the statute book. The proceeding under section 271 is a separate proceeding, penal in nature, as has been laid down by the Supreme Court. Such a proceeding, though it may relate to a particular assessment year, can commence only if one of the offences mentioned in that section had been committed. It is the general principle that whether the act or omission would be an offence must be determined with reference to the state of law at the time that act or omission took place. In this case, the act com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s directly opposed to the view that we are inclined to take now. We refer the case to a Full Bench for decision. JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH The judgment of the court was delivered by GOVINDAN NAIR, Actg. C.J.-This tax referred case has come up before the Full Bench on an order of reference by a Division Bench dated 28th November, 1972. The reference was made because of the conflict between the decisions in I.T.R. No. 38 of 1970 and I.T.R. No. 71 of 1968. The question is : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not applicable to this case?" By the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part. The act of furnishing inaccurate particulars had taken place after the amendments were introduced to the section. Imposition of penalty by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was, therefore, justified. The Tribunal held that the amended section would not apply because the year of assessment (1963-64) ended before the amendments were effected. It was further observed that to apply the section would be to give retrospective operation to the section as amended. The year of assessment has nothing to do with the question of liability arising under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. And to apply the section as amended to an act committed after the amendmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
