https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22024 The amended section 18(3) of the Wealth-tax Act removed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction to impose penalty and vested that power in the Wealth-tax Officer, subject to the prescribed approval. Following the binding Allahabad HC decision in CIT v. Om Sons, contrary views of other High Courts did not alter that position. The reference was therefore answered in favour of the assessee, holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to impose penalty on the relevant date. en-us Wed, 13 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:47:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22024 The amended section 18(3) of the Wealth-tax Act removed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction to impose penalty and vested that power in the Wealth-tax Officer, subject to the prescribed approval. Following the binding Allahabad HC decision in CIT v. Om Sons, contrary views of other High Courts did not alter that position. The reference was therefore answered in favour of the assessee, holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to impose penalty on the relevant date. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 13 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22024