TMI Blog1978 (5) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment year 1969-70, it filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 28,170. The assessment was, however, computed on a total income of Rs. 27,860. On appeal, the total income computed by the ITO was sustained and a loss of Rs. 14,313 was determined by the AAC. While computing the assessment, the ITO initiated proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, and referred the matter to the IAC under s. 274 of the Act. The IAC held that the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) were attracted, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000 by his order dated November 29, 1971. An appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that as s. 274(2) of the I.T. Act had been amended, with effect from April 1, 1971, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1971, in respect of cases where the amount involved was less than Rs. 25,000. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Royal Motor Car Co. [1977] 107 ITR 753 and in the case of CIT v. R. Ochhavlal Co. [1976] 105 ITR 518, has taken the view that the amendment did not affect the jurisdiction of the IAC to complete penalty proceedings, where a valid reference had been made to him by the ITO. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Watan Mechanical Turning Works [1977] 107 ITR 743 [FB], held that the enlarged period of limitation contained in the amendment to s. 275 of the Act with effect from April 1, 1971, applied to cases of penalty where the time for imposing the penalty had not expired. The view was based on the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Kallu Khan v. Kamrul Nisa [1962] ALJ 1039. In that case, suits under the U.P.Z.A. L.R. Act for declaration of sirdari rights were filed, and at the time they were filed the civil court had exclusive jurisdiction to decide them. While the suits were pending, s. 332B was introduced by way of amendment by U.P. Act 18 of 1956. According to the modified provisions, the issue regarding sirdari rights had to be referred to revenue courts, as this amendment took away the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide the question of sirdari right. Subsequently, Act 37 of 1958 deleted s. 332B, with the result that the necessity for making a reference ceased to exist. Further, while the suits were pending revenue courts were clothed with exclusive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt was taken away. The amending Act, however, contained a saving clause, for, by s. 23, it provided that pending suits would continue to be tried by the court in which they were instituted. But as in the present case there is no saving clause this decision of the Full Bench will not apply. In our view, the Full Bench decision of this court in Kallu Khan v. Kamrul Nisa [1962] ALJ 1039 settles the controversy. Thus, as on the date when the IAC passed the final order, his jurisdiction to do so had been taken away by the amendment in s. 274(2) of the Act, the order passed by him was thus without jurisdiction. We, accordingly, answer the question referred in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
