9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the case of the assessee was taken up on January 28, 1974. It was found by the ITO that the assessee had prima facie concealed an income of Rs. 40,000. On August 6, 1974, the ITO referred the case to the IAC, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana, on the ground that he only had the jurisdiction to impose a penalty as the income concealed exceeded Rs. 25,000. The IAC accepted the reference and vide his order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Mela Ram Jagdish Raj & Co. [1981] 132 ITR 897. In that case, it was observed as under (p. 900) : " Shri Gupta, the learned counsel for the assessee, relies on the decisions of the Orissa High Court in CIT v. Dhadi Sahu [1976] 105 ITR 56 and Radheshyam Agarwalla v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 196 and also that of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Om Sons [1979] 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gopal Sheorey v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 915, to hold that the procedural laws are retrospective. There is no dispute with this proposition, but the main question to be determined is as to whether the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 274 of the Act relate to procedure or to a question of jurisdiction. In our view, the moment penalty proceedings are initiated by the ITO, the question of jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
