SATISH CHANDRA, J. - (1.) FOR the asst. yr. 1964-65 (the accounting year ending on 31st Dec., 1963) the assessee filed a return showing a total income of Rs. 68,550. On 10th June, 1968 the assessee filed a revised return indicating a total income Rs. 1,34,354. The assessment made on 30th Dec., 1968 was on a total income of Rs. 1,68,944. Penal proceedings were drawn up. The assessee contested it and submitted that it has filed the original return on an estimated basis because the books of accounts had not been closed or audit completed. The audit was completed on 16th March, 1965 and thereafter the revised return was filed when the case was fixed for hearing under s. 143 (2).
(2.) THE matter relates to the asst. yr. 1963-64 in respect of which the assessee filed a return on 29th June 1965, this is to say, after the explanation added to s. 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act, 1961 which came into force on 1st April, 1964. The Tribunal cancelled the levy of penalty primarily on the ground that the authorities below had erred in applying the aforesaid Explanation to the facts of this case. It held that the Explanation was not operative retrospectively and could not apply to the asst. yr. 1963-64. The question as to the applicability of the *Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has been the subject-matter of several decisions. This Court in the case of CIT vs. Champlal Jain (1978) 112 ITR 809 (Cal) agreed with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Data Ram Satpal (1975) 99 ITR 507 (All), CIT vs. S. Devendra Singh (1977) 108 ITR 314 (All) and Addl. CIT vs. Jiwan Lal Shah 1975 CTR (All) 288 : (1977) 109 ITR 474 (All). It was held that the relevant and actual date is the date when the offence is committed and for the purpose of penalty offence committed is the date when the return is filed because the concealment is made therein. The relevant date would hence be the date of filing of the return irrespective of the assessment year to which it may relate. If the return was filed after the Explanation came into force on April, 1964 the Explanation would be applicable.
(3.) IN the present case, the offence was committed on 29th June, 1965 when the return was filed for the asst. yr. 1963-64. In view of the aforesaid decision, with which we agree, the Explanation was attracted.;