https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25139 Where penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) had already been initiated and were pending before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner before the deletion of section 274(2) from 1 April 1976, the later statutory change did not divest him of jurisdiction. The controlling principle applied was that an authority already seized of the matter may complete pending proceedings despite the repeal or deletion of the enabling procedural provision. On that basis, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner retained jurisdiction to impose the penalty, and the Tribunal was held unjustified in concluding otherwise. en-us Thu, 20 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:03:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25139 Where penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) had already been initiated and were pending before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner before the deletion of section 274(2) from 1 April 1976, the later statutory change did not divest him of jurisdiction. The controlling principle applied was that an authority already seized of the matter may complete pending proceedings despite the repeal or deletion of the enabling procedural provision. On that basis, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner retained jurisdiction to impose the penalty, and the Tribunal was held unjustified in concluding otherwise. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 20 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25139