Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) THE assessee filed returns of income on 27th August, 1968, for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69. On 14th August, 1969, he filed revised returns for all the aforesaid years, except for the year 1966-67. THE income in the original as well as in the revised returns was as follows: JUDGEMENT_622_ITR119_1979Html1.htm
(2.) THE ITO accepted the revised returns and passed the assessment orders on different dates of August, 1969, except for the year 1966-67, for which the assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 16,903. In the assessment orders he recorded a finding that the assessee filed returns late and that he had not filed estimate of income under Section 212(3) of the I.T. Act. Hence, proceedings for levying the penalty were initiated. In due course a notice was issued to show cause why penalty under Sections 271(1)(a) and 273(b) of the Act be not imposed. The assessee made an application to the CIT under Section 271(4A) of the Act praying that the imposable penalty be waived or reduced. The assessee thereafter applied for adjournment of penalty proceedings on the ground that he had made an application before the Commissioner for waiving or Reducing the imposable penalty. The proceedings were adjourned on February 18, 1972 and March 20, 1972, on which date March 24, 1972, was fixed. On this date, i.e., March 24, 1972, the assessee again made an application for adjournment, but the same was rejected and the penalty orders were passed on the same day. The ITO imposed penalty in different amounts for late filing of the returns as well as for not filing the estimate of income totalling Rs, 5,239 in all, for all the five years.
(3.) THE assessee went up in appeal and then to the Tribunal, but failed. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for our opinion : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amended provisions of Section 275 were applicable and the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer on 24th March, 1972, were, therefore, not barred by limitation ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was liable to penalty under Sections 271(1)(a) and 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" ;