The main legal point established in the judgment is that the act of concealment attracting penalty under Sec. 271 (1) (c) is committed when the return is filed, and the quantum of penalty imposable is governed by the law in force on the date of concealment.

( 1 ) BECAUSE a common, question of law arises for consideration in these two cases they are disposed of by this common :judgment. The as lessees in these two cases are different persons. M/s. C. G. Bagalkoti and Sons, a registered film of Dharwar is the assessee in, i. T. R. C. No. 31 of 1974. In respect of assessment year 1965-66, the assessee filed a return on 31-7-1968. In the course of the said assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer felt satisfied that the assessee had concealed the particulars of certain income derived by it during the previous year in question, and therefore initiated proceedings under sec. 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter inferred to as the 'act' ). Since he was of the opinion that the minimum penalty imposable was more than rupees one thousand, he referred, the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. After hearing the assessee, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was of the opinion that penalty was leviable in accordance with the provisions of the Act as amended by Finance Act 6f 1968 which came into force on 1-4-1968 and levied-a penalty of Rs. 6,000 by his order dt 18-11-1971. The assesee took up the matter in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the plea of the assessee that the penalty leviable in the instant case was the penalty which could have been imposed according to the provisions in force at the commencement of the assessment year itrcs 31 and 73 of 1974. and the provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 1968 were in-applicable to the case. Accordingly it reduced the quantum of penalty payable by the assessee. At the instanee of the Additional commissioner of the Income Tax, the Tribunal has. Deferred the following question of Law under Sec. 256 (1) of the Act for the opinion of this Court: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstanceh of the case, the amendment to section 271 (1) (c) which is effective: from 1-4-1968 is applicable in this case for assessment year 1965-66 by virtue of the fact that return of income was filed after 1-4-1968 ?"

( 2 ) IN I. T. R. C. 73 of 1974, the assessee is S. Channiaiah (since deceased) represented by his legal representative Smt. Pramila. The assessment year in question is 1962-63. A return was filed in respect of the said assessment year by the astsessee on 10-7-68. In the course of the asse sment proceedings, the Income Tax Officer was satisfied that there was concealment of income by the assessee and he therefore, after initiating the proceedings under Sec. 271 (1) (c) of the Act, referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income, Tax, as the minimum penalty imposable exceeded Rupees one thousand. After hearing the asse see, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 24-7-1970 imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,51,682 in accordance with the provisions of the Act as amended, by the Finance Act, 1968. The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in, i. T. A. No. 3831/ Bang /1970-71. , The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the quantum of penalty had to be determined in accordance, with the law prevailing at the commencement of the relevant assessment year and not in accordance with the Act as amended by the Finance Act of 1968 even though the return had been filed subsequent to 1-4-1968. Accordingly, it allowed the appeal of the assessee in part and directed the peaalty to be levied in accordance with the law in force at the commencement ot the relevant assessment year i. e. 1962-63. The tribunal, however, did not go into the question as to the amount of income concealed by the aspessee since the determination thereof was according to it unnecessary in view of its decision on the question of applicability of the provisions of the Act which were in force on the date of the return. At the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore, Bangalore, the tribunal has referred