https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21618 The court held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to pass penalty orders under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act post an amendment brought about by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. Relying on precedent and emphasizing the need for both initial jurisdiction and power at the final order stage, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was not competent to impose penalties after losing jurisdiction due to the amendment. The decision aligned with previous cases, including CIT v. On Sons and CWT v. K. Narayan Rao, leading to the cancellation of penalties and awarding costs to the assessee. en-us Sat, 04 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:42:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21618 The court held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to pass penalty orders under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act post an amendment brought about by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. Relying on precedent and emphasizing the need for both initial jurisdiction and power at the final order stage, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was not competent to impose penalties after losing jurisdiction due to the amendment. The decision aligned with previous cases, including CIT v. On Sons and CWT v. K. Narayan Rao, leading to the cancellation of penalties and awarding costs to the assessee. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Sat, 04 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21618