- (1.) THE following question of law has been referred to us for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the agreement of the assessee to the levy of penalty of Rs. 32,188, the Tribunal was right in law in not going into the question whether the penalty was, in law, the minimum penalty leviable under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? "
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this reference may be mentioned. The assessee is a registered firm and carries on business of re-rolling mills at Mandi Gobindgarh. For the accounting year ending 30th September, 1965, relevant to the assessment year 1966-67, a return of income was originally filed on June 16, 1966, declaring an income of Rs. 42,131. The assessment was completed on January 7, 1967, and the total income was determined at Rs. 74,110. Subsequently, the ITO discovered that the assessee-firm had obtained hundi loans from M/s. Gurdit Singh Swaraj Singh, Majith Mandi, Amritsar, who denied having advanced any loan to the assessee and confessed that they were indulging in kawala business. Consequently, proceedings under Section 147 (a) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), were initiated with the approval of the Commissioner and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on December 10. 1969. The assessee thereafter submitted a letter dated January 23, 1970, to the Commissioner purporting to be an application under Section 271 (4a) of the Act. In this application, it was disclosed that the peak of the bogus hundi loans amounted to Rs. 1,30,000 on April 12, 1965, and a statement was also filed with this letter showing the working of the peak of the hundi loans. A return of income was filed on January 24, 1970, declaring an additional income of Rs. 8,388 with a note that this interest amount was surrendered as per application dated January 23, 1970, to the Commissioner. The Commissioner by a letter dated February 25, 1970, informed the assessee that its application for settlement was premature and was, therefore, rejected. The assessee thereafter wrote a letter dated May 6, 1970, to the ITO pointing out that over and above the amount of Rs. 8,388 already surrendered, the assessee was also surrender-ii)g a further amount of Rs. 30,988. From the peak credit of Rs. 1,30,000 a sum of Rs. 99,012, which had already been assessed for the assessment years 1960-61 to 1964-65, was excluded and this is how the amount of Rs. 30,988 was arrived at. A revised return of income was enclosed with this letter wherein Rs. 30,988 was disclosed as additional income. The assessee again sought the intervention of the Commissioner and after discussion with the assessee's representatives, the Commissioner incorporated the terms of the agreement arrived at by the assessee in a note dated January 1, 1971. The assessee's petition was not treated as a petition under Section 271 (4a) of the Act. For this assessment year, the assessee agreed to be taxed on an amount of Rs. 39,376 (including interest amounting to Rs 8,388 ). The assessee also agreed to the levy of minimum penalty, the basis of which was given in the Commissioner's note as under : " 8. For 1966-67, the assessment was originally made on the basis of return filed before 1-4-1968. In response to notice issued under Section 148, the assessee filed another return on 24-1-1970 declaring an additional income of Rs. 8,388. With regard to this amount of Rs. 8,388 the penalty is leviable with reference to the return filed prior to 1-4-1968. So the minimum penalty will be 20% of the tax sought to be evaded in respect of this amount of Rs. 8,388. 9. The assessee filed another revised return for 1966-67 on 8-5-1970 declaring an additional income of Rs. 30,988. This return is also being accepted under the settlement. Therefore, with regard to this concealed income of Rs. 30,988 the penalty is leviable not only with reference to the original return but also with reference to the return filed on 24-1-1970. The minimum penalty in respect of this concealed income will be Rs. 30,988. "
(3.) THE assessment was thereafter completed on a total income of Rs. 1,09,870. The assessment was accepted and no appeal was preferred.;