1987 (1) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to answer in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, reads thus : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to impose the penalty by passing an order under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274(2) ? " The assessment year concerned is 1966-67. The Income....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal that section 274(2) was amended with effect from April 1, 1971, and that thereafter the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction only in cases in which the minimum penalty imposable exceeded the sum of Rs. 25,000 whereas in paragraph 5 of this order, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had stated that the minimum penalty was Rs. 1,882. Fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r decided that the penalty must be levied and we followed it. We may note only that neither in the earlier matter nor in the matter before us was there any argument that the date upon which the Income-tax Officer had recorded his satisfaction in regard to the levy of penalty was other than the date upon which he had made a reference in regard to the quantum of penalty to the Inspecting Assistant C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mine the penalty except where the amount of income in respect of which particulars were concealed exceeded Rs. 25,000. This court came to the conclusion that the making of a reference under section 274(2) by the Income-tax Officer was more than a ministerial act. At the time when he made a reference, the Income-tax Officer had to make a conscious determination of the question of jurisdiction. When....