TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, 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 IAC had any jurisdiction to impose penalty u/s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on March 24, 1977, after the amendment of section 18(3) with effect from April 1, 1976, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act and referred the case to the IAC. When the penalty proceedings came up for consideration before the IAC, he found that the assessee had committed default for the two assessment years in question in terms of the Explanation to s. 18(1)(c) of the Act and accordingly penalties were imposed on her. Aggrieved by those orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a supplementary statement of the case and to state the date on which the matter regarding the imposition of penalty was referred by the WTO to the IAC in the instant case. In pursuance of this order, supplementary statement of the case has been received and it has been stated therein that the references were made by the WTO on 12th of January, 1977. It is in the light of this additional fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner." Thus, from 1st April, 1976, the IAC has no jurisdiction to impose penalty. While considering similar provisions in the I.T. Act, 1961, Division Bench of this court in CIT v. A. N. Tiwari [1981] 124 ITR 680, held that what was important to see was whether the reference was validly made to the IAC and that if the reference was valid in accordance with the provisions as they stood at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of s. 18(3), with effect from 1st April, 1976, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. Our answer to the first question referred to this court, therefore, is against the Department. In view of our answer to the first question, learned counsel for the parties conceded that it would not be necessary to answer the second question referred to this court. We, therefore, decline to answer that q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
