1996 (3) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, for the assessment year 1965-66 ?" For the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee filed a return on December 8, 1969, and the assessment was completed on March 20, 1970. Penalty proceedings for concealment of income in that return were initiated. But the original assessment completed on March 20, 1970, was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal. Then it was redone on November 13, 1972. Penalty proceedings were again initiated and a minimum penalty of Rs. 21,831 was levied by the Income-tax Officer. There was also a search in the premises of the assessee on October 18, 1973, when fixed deposit receipt for Rs. 10,000 was recovered. The deposit relates to the accounting year relevant to this assessment year, but being w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... roceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated after the reassessment was completed on July 22, 1974. Therefore, as per the law applicable as on that date as per the provisions of section 274(2) of the Act, the Income-tax Officer would have jurisdiction to levy penalty if the quantum of penalty is less than Rs. 25,000. In the present case, the penalty levied was only Rs. 10,000. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Income-tax Officer is in order and the Tribunal was not correct in stating that the penalty ought to have been levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, since the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000 was above Rs. 1,000 as per the law as it stood earlier to the amended provision of section 274(2) by the Taxation Laws (Amendme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inaccurate particulars. Who, at this point of time, has the authority to impose the penalty is what is relevant. Whoever this authority may be, he is obliged to impose such penalty as was permissible under the law in that behalf on the date on which the offence of concealment was committed, that is to say, on the date of the offending return. The two aspects must be firmly borne in mind, namely, who may impose the penalty and in what measure. " A similar view was also taken by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in CIT v. Dhadi Sahu [1993] 199 ITR 610. In view of the amended provision, in the present case, the Income-tax Officer was justified in levying penalty of Rs. 10,000. Therefore, the Tribunal was not correct in stating the l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X