TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (5) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act "). After hearing the assessee, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that the escapement was with regard to Rs. 69,228 in addition to Rs. 8,000. He, therefore, levied a penalty of Rs. 25,000. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal reduced the quantum of penalty. With regard to the sum of Rs. 8,000 it held that a sum of Rs. 3,000 had not been concealed. With regard to the balance amount of Rs. 5,000 it took the view that, in view of the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali, no penalty was exigible. However, it reduced the amount of und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....department, contends that in view of the following expression used in section 2 74(2) of the Act : " ........ shall...... have all the powers conferred under this Chapter for the imposition of penalty ; " it necessarily follows that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner could determine whether there were other amounts of concealed income besides the one determined by the Income-tax Officer for the purpose of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this connection, it would be proper to set out the relevant provisions of section 271(1)(c) and section 274(2) of the Act. These are to the following effect: "271. (1) If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in the course, of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is concerned in subsection (1) of section 271 of the Act. The reason for this is obvious it is only the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who are concerned with the assessment and it is not disputed that, so far as the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is concerned, he is not concerned with the assessment. Therefore, the question whether any income has been concealed or inaccurate particulars of any income have been furnished is a matter which primarily and necessarily rests with the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It is well-known that an appellate authority normally has the same powers as the original authority. Unless these powers were specifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the imposition of the penalty is left to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. To hold otherwise would mean that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner can sit in judgment over the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and be a sort of appellate authority when the Act does not make him one. In fact, Mr. Awasthy admits that the powers of the authorities mentioned in section 271(1) and section 274(2) of the Act are the same. The correct position is that the power under section 274(2) of the Act is a power of reference and, unless a case is referred, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will have no power to examine it. For instance, if the Income-tax Officer had come to the conclusion that Rs. 8,000 was not a conceale....