TMI Blog1978 (4) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al for our opinion are as follows: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that for the purposes of calculating penalty under s. 271(1)(c), the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) as amended by the Finance Act, 1968, with effect from April 1, 1968, were not applicable and that the penalty has to be calculated according to the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... calculated in accordance with the law as it stood prior to its amendment on April 1, 1968, or recourse has to be taken to the amended law. It is not disputed that the relevant amendments giving the measure of penalty came into force with effect from April 1, 1968. The question, in substance, is whether the taxable event is the date of filing of the original return or the date of the filing of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposable penalty. Learned counsel for the department invited our attention to another decision of this court in Amjad Ali Nazir Ali v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 419 (All). In our opinion, this case is distinguishable. There the principal controversy was whether the voluntary return filed under s. 139(5) of the Act could, in law, supplant a return filed under s. 139(1). The Bench held that it will depen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal return becomes redundant in so far as the imposition of penalty is concerned. No such situation has arisen in the present case. The assessee did not file a revised return on the basis that he had subsequently discovered an error in the original return. He had to file a revised return because he was asked to do so by a notice. The present case is directly covered by the two earlier decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
