TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (12) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to levy penalties and, hence, his penalty orders were illegal and without jurisdiction when the proceedings to levy penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70 and 1973-74 to 1975-76, were initiated by the Income-tax Officer before April 1, 1976, but the references to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were made by the Income-tax Officer after April 1, 1976 ? " The aforesaid reference has arisen in the following circumstances. The non-applicant assessee is a register....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f subsection (1) of section 271, if in a case falling under clause (c) of that sub-section, the amount of income (as determined by the Income-tax Officer on assessment) in respect of which the particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished exceeds a sum of twenty-five thousand rupees, the Income-tax Officer shall refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who shall, for the purpose, have all the powers conferred under this Chapter for the imposition of penalty." Consequent on the search and seizure being made by the Department on October 19, 1974, the assessee submitted revised returns in respect of the assessment year's 1973-74 to 1975-76. For these years also, the Income-tax Officer initiated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Income-tax Officer and he had initiated penalty proceedings before April 1, 1976, the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 274 of the Act were applicable to these cases and hence the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was quite competent to impose penalties in these cases. On an application for reference under section 256(1) of the Act made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the learned Tribunal has referred question of law as stated hereinabove for the opinion of this court. Learned counsel for the assessee has cited two decisions of this court in support of his submission that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy penalties and hence his penalty orders were illegal and without jurisdiction when t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and as such it did not clothe the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner with jurisdiction to impose penalty. The other case cited by learned counsel for the assessee is Bankatlal Tody v. CWT [1982] 138 ITR 754 (MP) (MCC No. 155 of 1979 decided on March 12, 1982) in which the effect of amendment of an analogous provision of section 18(3) of the Wealth-tax Act by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, has been considered. In that case, the reference was made by the Wealth-tax Officer on January 29, 1977, when the provisions of section 18(3) of the Act requiring the Wealth-tax Officer to refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner were substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. It was held that the Inspecting Assista....