TMI Blog1979 (12) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from April 1, 1968, not being retrospective in its operation, is not applicable to the assessment year 1965-66 in the case of the assessee and thereby directing that the quantum of penalty will be with reference to the tax sought to be avoided ? " The facts giving rise to this reference as set out in the statement of the case are as follows: The assessee is a registered firm and the assessment year involved is 1965-66. The return for this year which was filed on December 31, 1965, was purported to have been signed by Tribhuvandas even though he died much earlier. Another return was submitted on January 23, 1969, disclosing a total income of Rs. 14,634. This return was duly signed by one Ambalal, another partner of the assessee-firm. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforesaid question of law for the opinion of this court. It is well settled that it is the law in force on the date on which the wrongful act is committed which would determine the penalty. The wrongful act of concealment of income or particulars of income would be committed on the date on which the return is filed and the penalty for such wrongful act is liable to be imposed in accordance with the law in force on the date of filing of such return. The law in force in the assessment year in relation to which the penalty is imposable is not relevant. In Addl. CIT v. Balwantsingh Sulakhanmal (M.C.C. No. 290/76 decided on 24-9-1979-since reported in [1981] 127 ITR 597) we have held that it is the law in force on the date on which the wron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return in accordance with law and was non est and, therefore, the only valid return in existence was the return filed on January 23, 1969, and the penalty proceeding and the assessment proceedings also did proceed on the basis of that return and, therefore, the penalty was imposable on the basis of the wrongful act committed by the assessee in concealing its income in the return dated January 23, 1969, and the amended provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were attracted. However, we find that in the view the Tribunal took that the penalty is imposable in accordance with the law applicable in the year of assessment, the Tribunal did not record a finding on the question as to when the wrongful act was committed by the assessee and, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
