TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw existing as on the date of filing of original return will be applicable for the purposes of imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), whereas even in the return filed under section 148, the assessee had not disclosed the income which was subsequently detected and added back ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in applying the ratio of the case of Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC), whereas the facts of the case are covered squarely under the case D. M. Manasvi [1972] 86 ITR 557 (SC), as a clear-cut device of concealment by manipulation of entries in the books of account has been established ?" The facts relevant for the purpose of the present order lie in a narro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the total income but which has been disallowed as a deduction), such person shall, unless he proves that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section. " It appears that the Tribunal did not apply this Explanation to the present case for the reason that the Explanation had come into existence after the date of the commission of the offence by the assessee, inviting penalty proceedings. At the hearing, learned counsel for the Revenue has placed reliance on the cases of CIT v. Parmanand Advani [1979] 119 ITR 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return forming the subject-matter of penalty proceedings was filed prior to that date. The questions, as suggested by the Revenue, do not correctly bring out the crux of the controversy. They need to be reframed. We are of the opinion that the following questions do arise from the order of the Tribunal : " (1) Whether the Explanation enacted to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1964, falls within the domain of substantive law or is merely a rule of evidence, falling within the domain of procedural law ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the abovesaid Explanation would be applicable to the penalty proceedings, which though initiated after the date of enactment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
