1982 (2) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... preferred an appeal which was decided partly in its favour. On appeal by the Department, the Incometax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated July 23, 1976, came to the conclusion that the assessee had Suppressed particulars of the income of Rs. 81,000 odd. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application to the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the Act. In response to the notice issued by the IAC under s. 274(1) the assessee submitted a written explanation. The IAC by his order dated January 24, 1977, imposed a penalty of Rs. 81,000. Against the aforesaid order of the IAC the assessee filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. The Tribunal decided the appeal by its order dated 21st September, 1978, reducing the penalt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ich 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." This provision was deleted by the Amending Act of 1975 with effect from April 1, 1976. The result being that after April 1, 1976, the IAC lost jurisdiction to impose any penalty even in a case where the income concealed or inaccurate particulars furnished exceeded a sum of Rs. 25,000. As ruled by this court in CIT v. Om Sons [1979] 116 ITR 215 (All), a court or tribunal deciding a matter must not only be possessed of ....