Salil K.Roy Chowdhury, J. - (1.) This is an appeal from a judgment and order dated the 7th of February, 1972 [Narandas Paramanand Das v. Income-tax Officer ] by which the trial judge dismissed the petitioner's writ petition directed against three notices, two dated the 3rd of December, 1966, and 6th of March, 1968, issued by the respondent No. 1 under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the third one being dated the 21st of February, 1968, issued under Section 274 read with Section 273 of the said Act. All the said notices were in respect of the assessment year 1963-64 for imposing penalty, calling upon the appellant, which is a partnership-firm, to show cause why penalty should not be imposed for not filing the return under Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and also for not filing an estimate of advance tax payable under Section 18A(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, or Section 212(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the same assessment year.
(2.) The appellant argued only two points before the trial court. Firstly, that Section 22(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, is nothing but a proviso to Section 22(1)/22(2) of the said Act and as such if the return is filed before the assessment is complete then it cannot be said that the return is filed out of time. The said contention was advanced on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. and S.C. Praskar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas . The second point urged was that the penal interest was levied under Section 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the respondents cannot initiate proceeding under Section 271 for penalty inasmuch as it would amount to double jeopardy.
(3.) It is an admitted position in this case that the appellant filed the return for the assessment year 1963-64 on the 23rd of May, 1967, and thereafter a revised return was filed on the 14th of September, 1967. It is also admitted that the ITO has imposed interest for the said assessment year amounting to Rs. 87,020 under Section 139(1)(b), proviso to Clause (iii), and Rs. 510 under Section 215 of the said Act. The trial judge rejected both the contentions of the appellant relying on the Supreme Court decision in Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR(SC) 1.;