9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following questions of law to this court for its opinion. " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amendment of section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, w. e. f. April 1, 1971, had the effect of taking away the jurisdiction of the IAC to proceed with penalty proceedings for the five assessment years in question al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty of concealment of a part of his income and he accordingly initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the minimum penalty imposable under the Act exceeded a sum of Rs. 1,000, the ITO referred the matter to the IAC who, after hearing the assessee, found, by his order dated 17th March, 1973, that the assessee was guilty of concealment. Penalty was accordingly imposed on the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the IAC, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid questions of law to this court for its opinion: Now, as regards both the questions, the matter, is in our opinion, concluded by the two decisions of this court. In CIT v. A. N. Tiwari [1980] 124 ITR 680, a Division Bench of this court has observed as follows (p. 685): " Now s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been held that the amended provision enlarging the period of limitation would apply if in a particular penalty proceeding pending before the IAC the period of limitation was still running on 1st April, 1971. In view of the aforesaid decisions, our answer to the first question referred to us is that the amendment of s. 274(2) of the Act, which came into force on 1st April, 1971, did not have th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
