Satish Chandra, J. - The questions of law referred for our opinion are :-
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the quantum of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) had to be fixed in this case with reference to the provisions prior to its amendment w.e.f. 1.4.68 even though the return of income was filed on 9.10.69 ?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in reducing the quantum of penalty under S. 271(1)(c) from Rs. 10,000/- to 20% of the tax sought to be evaded if the assessees returned income had been accepted as correct income ?
2. As the question mentions it, the penalty was imposable under clause (c) of S. 271(1) of the Act namely for concealment of income or furnishing of incorrect particulars. In Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Dataram Satpal, this Court has held that the law applicable to the imposition of penalty would be the law which was prevalent on the date of the commission of the default. In cases of concealment or of furnishing inaccurate particulars the date of default would be the date on which the return of income is filed. In the present case, as the question mentions, the return was filed on 9.10.1969. Hence the applicable law was that prevailing on 6.10.1969 i.e. S. 271 as it stood after its amendment which came into force w.e.f. 1.4.1968. Thus the Tribunal was in error in holding that the applicable law was the one which was in force prior to amendment introduced on 1.4.1968. In this view the question No. 1 is answered by holding that the law after the amendment on 1.4.1968 was applicable. In this view the second question which is in regard to the quantum of penalty does not arise and the same is returned un-answered.
3. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200/-.