TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court clarifies jurisdiction for tax penalties post-amendment</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus DK. Nawlakha</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus DK. Nawlakha - [2000] 246 ITR 557, 165 CTR 582 Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) after the deletion of section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act.Detailed Analysis:The judgment in this case revolves around the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) to impose a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act after the deletion of section 274(2). The factual background reveals that for the assessment year 1973-74, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) against the assessee for concealing income. The matter was then referred to the IAC, who imposed a penalty of Rs. 72,960 on March 14, 1978. Notably, section 274(2) was deleted from April 1, 1976, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975.The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of the amended provisions of the Income-tax Act concerning the authority to impose penalties. The Revenue argued that the deletion of section 274(2) was merely procedural and a change of forum, contending that the Tribunal erred in canceling the penalty order. However, the absence of representation from the assessee complicates the matter. The court delves into the distinction between procedural laws and vested rights, emphasizing that a change of forum affects vested rights, especially when proceedings have commenced before a specific authority.The court extensively references legal precedents to clarify the significance of jurisdiction in penalty imposition cases. Citing cases such as CIT v. Dhadi Sahu and Varkey Chacko v. CIT, the court emphasizes that penalties for concealment or inaccurate particulars can only be imposed post-assessment order by the competent authority. The court highlights that the amendment to section 274 in 1970 altered the authority to impose penalties. In the present case, as section 274(2) had been deleted before the penalty order was passed, only the Income-tax Officer retained the authority to impose penalties, not the IAC.Ultimately, the court concludes that the IAC lacked jurisdiction to impose the penalty after the deletion of section 274(2), affirming the Tribunal's decision. The judgment underscores the critical importance of statutory provisions and the timing of amendments in determining the appropriate authority for penalty imposition, ensuring adherence to legal procedures and safeguarding vested rights in tax matters.
TaxTMI 