Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 25 1998 SLD 25 1998 PTD 178 (1997) 226 ITR 442 (1998) 78 TAX 43
Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No.2025 of 1978, decision dated: 27-02-1996
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, JJ
Jayanta Das, Senior Advocate (G.S. Chatterjee and Ms. Aruna Banerjec, Advocates with him) for Appellant V. Gauri Sankar, Senior Advocate (Ms. A Subhashini and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for
Respondent

B.N. SHARMA

VS

COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax

Law: Income Tax Act, 1961

Section: 271(1)(c)(iii)

Income-tax----Penalty---Concealment of income---Quantum of penalty---Change of law---Penalty to be worked out on basis of law in force at time of filing return, whether original and/or revised---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.271(1)(c)(iii)---[B.N. Sharma v. C.I.T. (1977) 110 ITR 538 reversed]. The amount of penalty for concealment of income should be worked out on the basis of the law in force at the time of filing of the return, whether original and/or revised which contained the alleged concealment or misstatement. B.N. Sharma v. C.I.T. (1977) 110 ITR 539 reversed. C.LT. v. Onkar Saran & Sons (1992) 195 ITR 1 (SC) fol. JUDGMENT This appeal has to be allowed following the decision of this Court in CIT v. Onkar Saran & Sons (1922) 195 ITR 1. The question referred for the opinion of the High Court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act was (see (1977) 110 ITR 538, 539)- "Whether the amount of penalty imposable should have been worked out on the basis of the law in force at the time the return was filed and the delinquency of excluding the part of the income had been committed ?" The High Court has…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492