https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470565 Jurisdiction to impose post-assessment penalties under the Black Money Act remained with the regular Assessing Officer where prior Joint Commissioner or Joint Director approval was required. Although a concurrent-jurisdiction order empowered the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation) to perform Assessing Officer functions, CBDT guidelines confined investigation officers' penalty powers to matters not requiring such approval. A jurisdictional challenge could be raised as a pure legal issue despite participation in penalty proceedings. Because the penalty required approval under the Act, the Deputy Director lacked authority to impose it, and the penalty orders for the relevant assessment years were set aside. en-us Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Jul 2026 08:27:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470565 Jurisdiction to impose post-assessment penalties under the Black Money Act remained with the regular Assessing Officer where prior Joint Commissioner or Joint Director approval was required. Although a concurrent-jurisdiction order empowered the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation) to perform Assessing Officer functions, CBDT guidelines confined investigation officers' penalty powers to matters not requiring such approval. A jurisdictional challenge could be raised as a pure legal issue despite participation in penalty proceedings. Because the penalty required approval under the Act, the Deputy Director lacked authority to impose it, and the penalty orders for the relevant assessment years were set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470565