ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BALWANTSINGH SULAKHANMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter called " the Act ", the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following questions of law to this court for its opinion:

(2.) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the law applicable for the imposition of penalty in this case would be as contained in Section 271(1)(c) prior to its amendment on April 1, 1968, and thereby directing that the quantum of penalty would be calculated with reference to the amount of tax sought to be avoided ? "

(3.) IN response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act sent by the ITO, the assessee filed a return on 21st December, 1969, declaring an income of Rs. 5,000. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that this return could not be said to be a " revised return " as that expression refers to a return filed by an assessee under Section 139(5) of the Act. The fact remains that a return was filed on 21st December, 1969, in which particulars of income were found to have been concealed. Penalty proceedings were initiated on account of the aforesaid wrongful act committed on 21st December, 1969, and that is why the contention raised on behalf of the assessee before the IAC was that the law applicable to the penalty proceedings would be that relevant to the assessment year even though the return filed in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act was after 1st April, 1968. This contention was rejected by the IAC, who observed as follows :