TMI Blog1978 (11) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 1970-71, the assessee filed its return on 27th June, 1970. The ITO added back a sum of Rs. 22,755. On appeal, the added back amount was reduced to Rs. 20,000. Since the returned income fell below 80% of the assessed income, the ITO drew penalty proceeding under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act read with the Explanation. He issued a notice because the concealed income was below Rs. 20,000. After he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of filing of the return, i.e., 27-6-1970, and not as they stood amended w.e.f. 1-4-1971 were applicable to the assessee's case ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was in law justified in setting aside the penalty order dated 28-2-1975 u/s. 271(1)(c) passed by the Income-tax Officer ? " The statement of the case does not mention the date when the notice for initiating penalty proceedings was given by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the IAC may have been valid when they were initiated, yet the amendment of s. 274(2) deprived him of his jurisdiction and he could not exercise that jurisdiction or pass orders subsequent to the amendment. The present is the reverse case. Here, the ITO did possess jurisdiction on the date when he passed the order on 28th February, 1975. At the end of the Tribunal's order, we find observat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
