TMI Blog1975 (9) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 which had come into force on 1st of April, 1962. The two assessees filed returns for both the assessments years, i.e., 1960-61 and 1961-62, on 21 st February, 1966, in pursuance or such notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer completed the reassessment and levied penalties in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1961. Taking the case of Gopalakrishnan as typical of the two cases, the amounts of penalty levied were Rs. 2,370 and Rs. 2,823, respectively. The two assessees appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who cancelled the penalty on the ground that penalty could not be imposed under the provisions of the Act of 1961 when defaul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion " all the provisions " include the provisions of section 271 of the Act of 1961. That penalty could be levied under the Act of 1961 in respect of defaults in relation to assessment years preceding 1962-63 has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Jain Brothers v. Union of India. Thus, there is no scope for acceptance of the submission that penalty could not be levied under the Act of 1961. The learned counsel for the assessees submitted that in a case where notice for reassessment was issued, penalty could only be levied with reference to the delay or default, if any, in pursuance of such a notice. In effect, the submission was that once the notice for reassessment was issued, the default or delay, if any, which occurred earlier to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e period contemplated by the notice under section 139(2). The Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty, taking the default to be from 30th June, 1966. He rejected the contention of the assessee that the default would arise only from the date on which the return under section 139(2) was due. The matter ultimately reached the Patna High Court and the High Court hell that once a notice under section 139(2) was issued, there could not be any penalty under section 271(1) for failure to furnish the return as required by sub-section (1) of section 139. For our purpose, it is unnecessary to go into the correctness of this decision. It is enough to mention that the present case is not one where while the return was due under section 139(1) the Income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act of 1961 in respect of earlier years preceding 1962-63. We can only say that the assessees seem to have been bona fide agitating the question of non-applicability of the Act of 1961 with reference to earlier years. There were decisions to support them at the time when this contention was taken up. But now in view of the Supreme Court's pronouncement, the contention can no longer find acceptance of any court. The assessees could not, therefore, in the view they took, approach the Commissioner of Income-tax for this purpose earlier. We are sure that the Commissioner would, if approached by the assessees, consider the matter with sympathy in the particular circumstances mentioned above. As the assessees have failed, the Commissioner wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
