TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer had no jurisdiction to levy penalty in this case under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner alone can levy the penalty ?" The assessee, during the assessment year under consideration, was doing business in purchase and sale of standard gold jewellery and silver articles, filed his return on December 13, 1970, disclosing an income of Rs. 2,105. The Income-tax Officer determined the total income in the assessment made by him on January 12, 1973, at Rs. 25,510 including additions for deficiency in gross profit and cash balance. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee submitted before the Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt contended that the provisions of section 274(2) are of procedural nature and, therefore, the amended provisions thereof would apply to this case and consequently the Income-tax Officer alone had jurisdiction in this matter. The Tribunal, however, placing reliance on a decision of the Orissa High Court in CIT v. Dhadi Sahu [1976] 105 ITR 56, held that the assessee's contention was acceptable in view of the Madras High Court decision in Continental Commercial Corporation v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 170, which was binding on the Madras Benches of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty. In that view of the matter, the penalty was cancelled. The Tribunal did not consider the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lars. A penalty proceeding, therefore, can be initiated only after an assessment order has been made which finds such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Who, at this point of time, has the authority to impose the penalty is what is relevant. Whoever this authority may be, he is obliged to impose such penalty as was permissible under the law in that behalf on the date on which the offence of concealment of income was committed, that is to say, on the date of the offending return. The two aspects must firmly be borne in mind, namely, who may impose the penalty and in what measure." Thus, considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the abovesaid decision of the Supreme Court, we hold that the Tribunal was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
