1997 (2) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eferred 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. 65,00....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 penalt....