1978 (5) TMI 21

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee carries on retail business at Delhi in woollen goods. For the assessment year 1969-70, it filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 28,170. The assessment was, however, computed on a total income of Rs. 27,860. On appeal, the total income computed by the ITO was sustained and a loss of Rs. 14,313 was determined by the AAC. While computing the assessment, the ITO initiated proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, and referred the matter to the IAC under s. 274 of the Act. The IAC held that the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) were attracted, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000 by his order dated November 29, 1971. An appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that as s. 274(2) of the I.T. Act had been amende....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the Amendment Act took away the jurisdiction of the IAC as from April 1, 1971, in respect of cases where the amount involved was less than Rs. 25,000. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Royal Motor Car Co. [1977] 107 ITR 753 and in the case of CIT v. R. Ochhavlal & Co. [1976] 105 ITR 518, has taken the view that the amendment did not affect the jurisdiction of the IAC to complete penalty proceedings, where a valid reference had been made to him by the ITO. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Watan Mechanical & Turning Works [1977] 107 ITR 743 [FB], held that the enlarged period of limitation contained in the amendment to s. 275 of the Act with effect from April 1, 1971, applied to cases of penalty where the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....decision was exhaustively considered by a Full Bench of this court in the case of Kallu Khan v. Kamrul Nisa [1962] ALJ 1039. In that case, suits under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for declaration of sirdari rights were filed, and at the time they were filed the civil court had exclusive jurisdiction to decide them. While the suits were pending, s. 332B was introduced by way of amendment by U.P. Act 18 of 1956. According to the modified provisions, the issue regarding sirdari rights had to be referred to revenue courts, as this amendment took away the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide the question of sirdari right. Subsequently, Act 37 of 1958 deleted s. 332B, with the result that the necessity for making a reference ceased to exist. Furt....