1982 (7) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....balance Rs. 12,533 (ii) Inflation in advertisement & publicity Rs. 25,000 (iii) Interest on unexplained cash credit Rs. 500 (iv) Unexplained cash credit Rs. 40,000 Rs. 78,033 In the view that these additions constituted concealed income of the assessee, he initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty and since the assessee did not respond to the show cause notice, imposed a penalty of Rs. 60,000 by his order dt. 27th March, 1980. The assessee appealed. The CIT(A) found that the revised return was filed after detection of concealment and that the income concealed should be confined to a sum of Rs. 37,533. However, he cancelled the penalty imposed on the ground that according to law in force on the date when the return was file....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eard on merits. 4. On consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the Revenue is entitled to succeed on the question of jurisdiction. Normally when the question is whether the authority passing an order had the power to pass such order on the date when he exercised it, that question of jurisdiction would be decided in a civil dispute with reference to the law as it stands on the day when he exercised the power. We may refer to the observation of Justice Chagla in Moti Ram Sarabji vs. Onkarmal Ishwar Dass AIR 1952 (Bom) 373 to the extent that if the Court had jurisdiction to try a suit when it come for disposal it cannot refuse to assume jurisdiction by rayon of the fact that it had no jurisdiction to entertain it, at....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ovisions of law relating to penalty'. Hence, we must look to the law as it was in force at the time of the initiation of the penalty proceeding in this case, namely 13the Jan., 1978 to ascertain whether the ITO could have proceeded with the case himself or was required to refer the matter to the IAC. On that date, admittedly, sub-s. (2) of s. 274 requiring a reference to the IAC has been omitted and therefore, the IAC was perfectly justified in proceeding with the matter himself and the CIT(A) was in error in cancelling his order as without jurisdiction. 5. On behalf of the assessee, it was argued that the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Jain Bros. was an obiter and could not be applied to a case therefore jurisdiction in ....