TAIYABJI LUKMANJI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the assessee, the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :

(2.) SINCE , for the reasons stated hereafter, we are remitting the matter to the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, we do not consider it necessary to set out the facts in detail. The assessee, a registered partnership firm, filed its return of income for the assessment years 1968 -69 and 1969 -70 on July 31, 1968, and March 31, 1971, respectively. The assessee filed revised returns for the said assessment years on November 9, 1971, under s. 139(5) of the Act showing additional income for the said assessment years. The ITO substantially accepted the income returned in the revised returns and framed the assessments accordingly for the said assessment years. However, since the assessee had not disclosed the correct income in the original returns filed by it, the ITO initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and, after hearing the assessee, levied a penalty under the said provision. the AAC and the Tribunal confirmed the ITO's order levying penalty. It is in the background of these facts that the question referred to above is referred to us for our opinion.

(3.) UNDER the Income -tax Act, a minimum penalty equal to the amount of the concealed income and a maximum penalty equal to twice that amount, is prescribed. Besides, there can also be prosecution and conviction -rigorous imprisonment for not less than six months which can be extended to two years.