9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) in this case and accordingly in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 65,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Commissioner was already seized of the matter, the jurisdiction continued to vest with him. The Tribunal held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to levy penalty. Accordingly, the penalty was cancelled, which was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. However, this court in CIT v. Seth Purushothamdas Dwarkadas [1996] 221 ITR 304, held that when the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner did not lose the jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings pending before him on March 31, 1976. He was entitled to continue with those proceedings and pass appropriate orders according to law. In the present case, the Tribunal held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
