TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on March 14, 1978, holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose the said penalty under section 271(1)(c) after the deletion of section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act with effect from April 1, 1976 ?" The factual position is almost undisputed. So far as relevant for adjudication it is as follows : For the assessment year 1973-74 before completion of the assessment, the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated March 30, 1976, initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Since the minimum penalty leviable exceeded Rs. 25,000, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same to the Income-tax Officer." As on April 1, 1976: "(1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard... (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." Learned counsel for the Revenue characterised the deletion as a change of forum and to be procedural and assailed the order of the Tribunal. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notice. It is true that no litigant has any vested right in the matter of procedural law. But where the question is one of the change of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity has the jurisdiction to impose penalty is what is relevant. In both Dhadi Sahu's case [1993] 199 ITR 610 and Varkey Chacko's case [1993] 203 ITR 885, the apex court considered the effect of amendment introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, with effect from April 1, 1971. The position from that date has been indicated supra. Before amendment it read as follows : "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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
