TMI Blog1975 (2) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following question by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 196 1, as substituted by the Finance Act, 1968, was not retrospective in effect and as such not applicable to the assessment years 1960-61 and 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ponse to notices under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed returns on April 17, 1968. The assessee filed returns, which were not accepted and assessment was made at a higher figure. Penalty proceedings were thereafter initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and inasmuch as the minimum penalty imposable exceeded Rs. 1,000, the matter was taken up by the Inspecting Assistant Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e concealed income, whereas previously it was fixed at 20% of the tax sought to be avoided. The Tribunal took the view that the amending Act was not retrospective and further that the penalty was imposable on the basis of default committed in the original returns. The question raised in this reference is covered by a decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rain Achal Ram Sewak [197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
