1996 (6) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) in this case and accordingly in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 70,600 levied for the assessment year 1975-76 ? " The Tribunal by the order referred to above has held that consequent to the coming into force of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, on April 1, 1976, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter, therefore, he could not have passed an order of penalty on March 1, 1978. On this ground, the Tribunal has set aside the penalty. In this case, we are only concerned with the order of the Tribunal setting aside the penalty. The assessment has become final. The necessary facts ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r as the amount of penalty exceeded Rs. 25,000. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner by his order dated March 1, 1978, imposed a penalty of Rs. 70,600 under section 271(1)(c) as the addition has been confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal also on appeal. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already stated, the Appellate Tribunal by its order dated November 27, 1980, while holding on the merits that the penalty is exigible, since the assessee has been found to be guilty of concealment, deleted the penalty on the ground that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose penalty due to the coming into force of the Taxation Laws....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ying the said decision is squarely applicable herein. In this case also, a reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in accordance with the law in force on the date of reference. Once the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was thus seized of the matter, he did not lose seisin thereof on account of the deletion of sub-section (2) of section 274. This is also the principle underlying section 6 of the General Clauses Act. We may also mention that in Dhadi Sahu's case, [1993] 199 ITR 610, this court referred, inter alia, to the earlier decision of this court in Manujendra Dutt v. Purnedu Prosad Roy Chowdhury, AIR 1967 SC 1419, which too was a case of deletion of section 29 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, by the Amen....