Skip to content


Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Onkar Saran - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 492 of 1973
Judge
Reported in[1979]116ITR317(All)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 148 and 271(1)
AppellantAddl. Commissioner of Income-tax
RespondentOnkar Saran
Appellant AdvocateDeokinandan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGopal Behari, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....long before the amendment came into effect penalties could not be imposed with reference to the amended provisions. the tribunal has accepted his contention. at the instance of the department, the following question fu'.s been referred to us :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally correct in holding that the amended provisions of section 271(1)(c)(iii) were not applicable and that the penalties have to be levied with reference to the provisions which were in force on april 1, 1961, and april 1, 1962, notwithstanding the fact that the returns of income were filed after april 1, 1968.'3. in cit v. ram achal ram sewak : [1977]106itr144(all) , this court has held that the question whether the amended provisions of section 271(1)(c)(iii) will.....
Judgment:

Gulati, J.

1. This a reference under Section 256(1) of the I. T. Act. The assessee is a HUF. It filed returns of income for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63 and assessment for the year 1961-62 was completed on 28th March, 1962, and assessment for the year 1962-63 was completed on 28th November, 1963. Thereafter, the assessments were reopened under Section 148 read with Section 147(a) on the ground that a part of the assessee's income had escaped assessment. In response to the notices under Section 148 returns were filed on February 27, 1969, for both the years with the remarks 'income as originally filed '. The ITO completed the revised assessments and enhanced the income in respect of both the assessment years. Thereafter, he initiated proceedings for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2. With effect from April 1, 1968, the quantum of penalties was increased by amendment in Section 271(1)(c)(iii). The penalties were imposed with reference to the amended provision. The contention of the assessee is that as the original returns were filed long before the amendment came into effect penalties could not be imposed with reference to the amended provisions. The Tribunal has accepted his contention. At the instance of the department, the following question fu'.s been referred to us :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the amended provisions of Section 271(1)(c)(iii) were not applicable and that the penalties have to be levied with reference to the provisions which were in force on April 1, 1961, and April 1, 1962, notwithstanding the fact that the returns of income were filed after April 1, 1968.'

3. In CIT v. Ram Achal Ram Sewak : [1977]106ITR144(All) , this court has held that the question whether the amended provisions of Section 271(1)(c)(iii) will apply to a case or not will depend on the date when the original returns were filed and not the date when the revised returns were filed, in response to the notice under Section 148. In the instant case, the original returns were filed long before the amendment came into force. As such the amended provisions were not applicable. We, accordingly, answer the question by saying that the amended provisions of Section 271(1)(c)(iii) were not applicable in the instant case. As the answer is in favour of the assessee,he is entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 200.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //