ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. KHAJA KHUTABUDDINKHAN DR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this reference at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion:

(2.) IN this very case, at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred for our opinion by the Tribunal :

(3.) AGAINST the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, the assessee took the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and the same two contentions which were urged before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner were again urged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also rejected the two contentions and held that the order of penalty was not barred by limitation nor could it be said that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose the penalty. The Tribunal, however, accepted the contention urged on behalf of the assessee with regard to the quantum of penalty. The Tribunal concluded that the quantum of penalty should be in accordance with the provisions as they existed prior to the amendment which came into force on April 1, 1968. Apparently, the Tribunal held that the minimum penalty should be imposed, worked out on the basis of 20 per cent, of the tax sought to be avoided.