Penalty jurisdiction under amended section 274(2): Income-tax Officer alone could impose penalty, not the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.

After the amendment to section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, jurisdiction to impose penalty for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars up to Rs. 25,000 vested in the Income-tax Officer alone. The commentary notes that the earlier limitation issue was treated as academic because it had already been decided in favour of the department. On the live jurisdictional question, the controlling view applied was that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner no longer retained authority to pass the penalty order.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the amendment to section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner retained jurisdiction to impose penalty where the concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars was up to Rs. 25,000.

Analysis: The reference raised a limitation question as well, but that issue had already been answered in favour of the department and was therefore treated as academic. The only live question was whether, in view of the amended section 274(2), the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner could still pass the penalty order. The controlling view applied was that, after the amendment, jurisdiction to impose penalty in such cases vested in the Income-tax Officer alone.

Conclusion: The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the penalty order.

---