https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22855 Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was treated as without jurisdiction because the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lacked authority after the statutory amendment. The initiation of penalty proceedings, however, remained valid, and a validly initiated proceeding does not end merely because it was disposed of by an officer without jurisdiction. The matter had to be concluded by the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction, while the question of limitation under section 275 was left open for consideration at that stage. The cancellation of the penalty was therefore upheld, and the proceeding was held not to have culminated finally. en-us Mon, 16 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:54:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22855 Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was treated as without jurisdiction because the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lacked authority after the statutory amendment. The initiation of penalty proceedings, however, remained valid, and a validly initiated proceeding does not end merely because it was disposed of by an officer without jurisdiction. The matter had to be concluded by the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction, while the question of limitation under section 275 was left open for consideration at that stage. The cancellation of the penalty was therefore upheld, and the proceeding was held not to have culminated finally. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 16 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22855