TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (10) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee filed a return on 9th August, 1968, declaring an income by way of salary of Rs. 600 from the above firm. He filed another return on 12th August, 1968, declaring therein " nil " income. The assessment was made on 6th August, 1969, on an income of Rs. 11,700 on the finding that the assesee was a partner in the firm. The ITO initiated proceedings for imposing penalty and referred the same to the IAC as, according to him, the minimum penalty imposable exceeded Rs. 1,000. The income of the assessee consisting of income from his share in the firm was reduced in appeal to Rs.8,150.The IAC by an order dated 12th July,1971,imposed a penalty of Rs. 9,000 on the assessee under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. According to the order of the IAC, the minimum penalty imposable was Rs. 8,150 and the maximum penalty imposable was Rs. 16,300 in accordance with the provisions of cl. (iii) of s. 271(1) as it stood amended with effect from 1st April, 1968. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal held that s. 274(2) was amended with effect from 1st April, 1971, and the IAC ceased to have jurisdiction to impose penalty in cases where the amount of income concealed was less than Rs. 25,000 and as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be made unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271, if in a case falling under clause (c) of that sub-section, the minimum penalty imposable exceeds a sum of rupees one thousand, 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. (3) An Appellate Assistant Commissioner on making an order under this Chapter imposing a penalty, shall forthwith send a copy of the same to the Income-tax Officer." By s. 49 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into force on 1st April, 1971, for the words " the minimum penalty imposable exceeds a sum of rupees one thousand " in s. 274(2), the words and brackets " 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 " were substituted. As a result of the substitution made by s. 49 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal has not stated the date when the ITO made the reference to the IAC. However, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, and to obviate any further delay, we are giving our answer to question No. (2) without insisting upon an additional statement. It may be stated as a general principle that a law which brings about a change in forum does not affect pending actions unless intention to the contrary is clearly evinced. One of the modes by which such an intention is shown is by making a provision for change over of proceedings, from the court or the Tribunal where they are pending, to the court or the Tribunal which under the new law gets jurisdiction to try them. In Manujendra Dutt v. Purnedu Prosad Roy Chowdhury, AIR 1967 SC 1419, the Supreme Court considered the effect of the deletion of s. 29 from the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953, in the context of a pending action. The suit for ejectment against a tenant was instituted in a civil court in 1947. In view of s. 29 of the Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, the suit was transferred to the Controller. During the pendency of the suit before the Controller, s. 29 wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the amount of income in respect of which the particulars were concealed did not exceed Rs. 25,000. This supports the inference that in pending references the IAC continued to have jurisdiction to impose penalty. There is yet another way of looking at the matter. The words " 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 " as they occur in s. 274(2) clearly signify that the jurisdiction of the IAC for the purpose of imposing penalty is derived on a reference made to him by the ITO. Therefore, what is important is to see whether the reference was validly made to the IAC under s. 274(2). If the reference was valid in accordance with the provisions of s. 274(2) as it stood at the time of making the reference, it would not be invalidated by subsequent amendment in s. 274(2). The previous operation of s. 274(2) as it stood before 1st April, 1971, and anything done thereunder continued to have effect under s. 6(b) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, enabling the IAC to pass orders imposing penalty in pending references. In our opinion, therefore,....