https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7338 Where penalty proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1922 are continued by a successor Income-tax Officer after transfer of jurisdiction, the statutory requirement of notice and a reasonable opportunity of being heard remains mandatory. The continuation provision in section 5(7C) does not remove the safeguard in section 28(3). Accordingly, the successor officer must afford a fresh hearing before passing the penalty order, and the assessee's awareness of the jurisdictional change or failure to demand rehearing does not cure the defect. A penalty order made without that opportunity cannot stand. en-us Mon, 04 Mar 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7338 Where penalty proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1922 are continued by a successor Income-tax Officer after transfer of jurisdiction, the statutory requirement of notice and a reasonable opportunity of being heard remains mandatory. The continuation provision in section 5(7C) does not remove the safeguard in section 28(3). Accordingly, the successor officer must afford a fresh hearing before passing the penalty order, and the assessee's awareness of the jurisdictional change or failure to demand rehearing does not cure the defect. A penalty order made without that opportunity cannot stand. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 04 Mar 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7338