https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16506 Where penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) had already been referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner before the omission of section 274(2) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, the omission did not divest him of jurisdiction. Once validly seized of the pending matter, he retained authority to complete the proceedings and pass the penalty order according to law. The referred question was answered in the negative, and jurisdiction to impose penalty was upheld in favour of the Department. en-us Tue, 04 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:14:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16506 Where penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) had already been referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner before the omission of section 274(2) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, the omission did not divest him of jurisdiction. Once validly seized of the pending matter, he retained authority to complete the proceedings and pass the penalty order according to law. The referred question was answered in the negative, and jurisdiction to impose penalty was upheld in favour of the Department. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16506