9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred to this court two questions as questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in this reference. They read thus : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty for concealment could not be levied under amended section 271(1)(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which came into force with effect from April ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. Reassessment was, however, completed on a total income of Rs. 63,000. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and referred the proceedings to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, who, after allowing the assessee an opportunity of being heard, imposed penalty of Rs. 40,000. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, it may be stated, took the view that the retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed his income, it directed that the quantum of penalty be reduced to the minimum penalty leviable under the law before its amendment in 1968. Counsel are agreed that the facts and rival contentions in this case are similar to those in the case of Chowgule and Co. (Hind) Private Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 182 ITR 189 (Bom). It was held by our court in that case that when the assessee had already committed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Tribunal that the assessee is liable to penalty under the provisions in this regard as they obtained prior to amendment with effect from April 1, 1968. It might, however, be made clear that, for this purpose, the returned income will naturally be taken as the income shown by the assessee in the original return and not the revised return. Both the questions are answered accordingly, in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
