9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench. The assessee is a dealer in sandalwood. For the assessment year 1966-67, he did not file his return of income voluntarily and the ITO issued a notice under s. 148 of the I.T. Act. In response the assessee filed a return on January 8, 1969, showing an income of Rs. 7,000. The income was disclosed on an estimate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the income for the assessment year 1966-67. This contention prevailed with the Tribunal and it held that the amended provision which came into force on April 1, 1968, was not applicable retrospectively in respect of the income of the earlier assessment years, irrespective of the date of the filing of the return. The Tribunal relied on a decision of the Kerela High Court in the case of Hajee K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 of the Act. Clause (c) refers to penalty for the concealment of the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. Clause (iii) provides for quantum of penalty. Before April 1, 1968, clause (iii) of s. 27 l(1) of the Act provided a lower rate of penalty. With effect from April 1, 1968, this clause was amended and the rate of penalty was substantially enhanced. The statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty under s. 27l(1)(c) of the Act is not the assessment year in respect of which the return of income has been filed but the return itself. There is no question of a retrospective operation of the amended provision at all. The question is, as to when the act of concealment occurred. If an act of concealment is the basis for applying the law, then the date of filing the return will be the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
