TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether the Tribunal was justified in reducing the quantum of penalty to 30% of the tax sought to be avoided, as against the penalty of Rs. 8,200 levied by the IAC ? " The assessee, M/s. Hiralal Munnalal of Ujjain, an HUF, deriving income from money-lending and silver business and also from house property, filed a return of income for the assessment year 1965-66 on September 30,1968. The assessee disclosed its income in the return at Rs. 4,096. The ITO found that the accounts of the assessee were defective. He, therefore, rejected the book version of the assessee and assessed the assessee at a total income of Rs. 17,460. On appeal by the assessee, the AAC reduced the income assessed by a sum of Rs. 5,250. Thus, as a result of the AAC's ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the department contended that in the present case although the assessment related to the assessment year 1965-66 the return was filed by the assessee on September 30,1968, and, therefore, the concealment of the income was made by the assessee on that date. According to him, the amended s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act came into force on April 1, 1968, and, therefore, the penalty was rightly imposed by the IAC in accordance with the amended provision of law and the Tribunal erred in law in holding that by imposing, the penalty in accordance with the amended provision of law retrospective operation was given to it by the IAC. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that as the assessment relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concealment was committed by the assessee. Non-filing of a return on or before the due date also attracts penalty but from the mere non-filing of the return it cannot be said that income has been concealed on the last date when the return was to be filed. In the instant case, the assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1965-66 on September 30, 1968. The amended s. 271(1)(c) of the Act came into force on April 1, 1968. In the circumstances, the act of concealment of the income for the assessment year 1965-66 was committed by the assessee on September 30, 1968, when the return was filed. It cannot be presumed that if the assessee had, filed its return within the prescribed time it would have concealed its income and, therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty proceedings have been initiated after the amendment came into force. Thus, according to this decision also the act of concealment of income is committed by the assessee when the return of the income is filed. In Addl. CIT v. C. V. Bagalkoti Sons [1978] 115 ITR 131 (Kar), it has been held by the Karnataka High Court that a concealment of income which attracts s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the absence of any other statutory provision compelling the court to take a contrary view, takes place when the return is filed and that the quantum of penalty imposable in respect of such concealment would be that prescribed by law as in force on the date on which the act of concealment is committed. In Sulemanji Ganibhai v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 373 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
