https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38290 The High Court upheld the validity of the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that the satisfaction of concealment by the Income-tax Officer is necessary to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction is triggered only upon reference by the Income-tax Officer under section 274(2). The Court dismissed the reference, affirming the penalty order and directing the assessee to bear the costs, including a hearing fee of Rs. 100. Judge D. Pathak concurred with the judgment. en-us Fri, 19 Aug 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:14:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38290 The High Court upheld the validity of the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that the satisfaction of concealment by the Income-tax Officer is necessary to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction is triggered only upon reference by the Income-tax Officer under section 274(2). The Court dismissed the reference, affirming the penalty order and directing the assessee to bear the costs, including a hearing fee of Rs. 100. Judge D. Pathak concurred with the judgment. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Aug 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38290