9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w which was in force on the first day of the assessment year and not the amended law which came into effect from April 1, 1968 ? The facts are absolutely beyond controversy. Shortly speaking, the statement of the case submitted to this court represents a full statement of facts which are in respect of the assessment year 1967-68. The assessee filed a return showing an income of Rs. 2,477. The assessment was made on an income of Rs. 22,844 but this was ultimately reduced to Rs. 15,525 in appeal. A copy of the assessment order passed by the ITO has been marked annex. A and forms part of the statement of case. The main additions made in this case were in respect of the cash credit of Rs. 4,676 and disallowance of personal home expenses to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year, the quantum of penalty should have been governed by the law which was in force on April 1, 1967, and not in accordance with the law which came into force from April 1, 1968. The sole question, therefore, that arises for our consideration in this case is as to whether the quantum of penalty imposable for the assessment year 1967-68 would be governed by the law as it stood in force from April 1, 1967, which was the beginning of the assessment year in question or from April 1, 1968, which was the date from which the amended law, namely, cl. (iii) of s. 271 (1)(c) which was substituted by the Finance Act, 1968, with effect from April 1, 1968. That being the sole question for consideration in this case, it would bear repetition to say ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e quantum of penalty imposable. If decisions be needed in this respect, we may refer to a catena of decisions but, instead of an exhaustive mention of them, we refer only to some of the decisions which are these: The case of K. Ahamad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 29 (Ker) [FB], which was a judgment on a review of the Full Bench judgment in the case of CIT v. K. Ahamed [1974] 95 ITR 599 (Ker) [FB], the cases of Rajputana Stores v. IAC of LT. [1975] 99 ITR 499 (Gauhati), CIT v. Data Ram Satpal [1975] 99 ITR 507 (All) and F. C. Agarwal v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 408 (Gauhati), are all on the point as to the date from which the penal clause will apply, which are all against the case of the assessee and the view held by the Tribunal. In so far as direct case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
