https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28183 The High Court held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's assumption of jurisdiction for penalty proceedings was incorrect as the minimum penalty imposable was below the threshold. The Court ruled that the proper authority for penalty imposition was the Income Tax Officer, not the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, as per section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty order was deemed invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, aligning with previous interpretations emphasizing the importance of proper jurisdiction in penalty proceedings. The Court did not address the issue of the period of limitation as the penalty order was invalidated based on jurisdictional grounds. en-us Mon, 05 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:07:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28183 The High Court held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's assumption of jurisdiction for penalty proceedings was incorrect as the minimum penalty imposable was below the threshold. The Court ruled that the proper authority for penalty imposition was the Income Tax Officer, not the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, as per section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty order was deemed invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, aligning with previous interpretations emphasizing the importance of proper jurisdiction in penalty proceedings. The Court did not address the issue of the period of limitation as the penalty order was invalidated based on jurisdictional grounds. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 05 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28183