https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27880 The High Court held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) lacked jurisdiction to impose a penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act after the amendment to section 18(3) on April 1, 1976. The court emphasized that the IAC's authority to impose penalties relied on a valid reference made by the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) before the amendment date. Since the reference in this case was made prior to the amendment, the IAC's penalty imposition was deemed unauthorized. This ruling favored the assessee, concluding that the IAC exceeded jurisdiction post-amendment, highlighting the significance of adherence to statutory provisions in penalty imposition matters. en-us Mon, 12 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:53:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27880 The High Court held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) lacked jurisdiction to impose a penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act after the amendment to section 18(3) on April 1, 1976. The court emphasized that the IAC's authority to impose penalties relied on a valid reference made by the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) before the amendment date. Since the reference in this case was made prior to the amendment, the IAC's penalty imposition was deemed unauthorized. This ruling favored the assessee, concluding that the IAC exceeded jurisdiction post-amendment, highlighting the significance of adherence to statutory provisions in penalty imposition matters. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Mon, 12 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27880