ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RATANCHAND SEWAKRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this reference under S. 256(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (hereinafter called

(2.) THE material facts giving rise to this reference, as set out in the statement of case, briefly are as follows: The assessee is an individual and the assessment year in question is 1965 -66. A return of his income for the said assessment year was filed by the assessee and the assessment was completed. Subsequently, the ITO reopened the assessment for the year 1965 -66 and issued a notice under S. 148 of the Act to the assessee. In response to this notice, the assessee filed another return of his income on September 18, 1969, disclosing the same income as was disclosed by him in the return filed initially. Penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee by the ITO under S. 271(1)(c) of the Act and those proceedings were referred to the IAC for disposal. The IAC imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 in view of the fact that the minimum imposable penalty would be equal to the amount of income concealed. Against this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the default of the assessee would be attributable to the return filed in the, original assessment proceedings and that the law applicable to the asst. yr. 1965 -66 would be that laid down in S. 271(1)(c) of the Act, prior to its amendment on April 1, 1968. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question of law to this Court for its opinion.

(3.) FOR all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative and against the assessee. As none appeared on behalf of the assessee, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.