TMI Blog1979 (10) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax, M.P., Bhopal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"): " Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax in respect of pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act and that having failed to do so, the assessee was liable for penalty under the provisions of s. 273(b) as well as interest under s. 217 of the Act. The Addl. Commissioner after giving notice to the assessee and considering the objections of the assessee held that the order of the ITO was erroneous and was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Addl. Commissioner, therefore, set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 1155 of 1970-71 in the case of Indian Pharmaceuticals v. Addl. CIT, wherein it was held that the Addl. Commissioner had no power to set aside the order of assessment and directing the ITO to start penalty proceedings under s. 273(b) of the Act. However, the earlier order of the Tribunal on which reliance was placed by the Tribunal in the present case came up for consideration by this court in A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner has held that it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue he was right in exercising the jurisdiction conferred on him under s. 263 of the Act. No decision of the Supreme Court or of this court taking a contrary view has been brought to our notice. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the Addl. Commissioner had no jurisdiction to exercis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
