1994 (7) TMI 77 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
- Validity of the penalty levied and subsequently cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal.
- Interpretation of sections 256(1), 256(2), 254(1), and 260(1) of the Income-tax Act regarding reference applications.
- Maintainability of a reference application under section 256 in the context of an order passed by the Tribunal under section 260(1).

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the assessment year 1974-75. The assessee, an exporter of handloom textiles, faced a penalty of Rs. 59,430 for alleged inflation in purchase cost. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), which was later cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue filed an application under section 256(1) challenging the cancellation, which was allowed based on a previous High Court decision favoring the Revenue. However, a subsequent High Court ruling stated that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy a penalty after April 1, 1976.

The Tribunal implemented the High Court's decision under section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act. The present reference application under section 256(2) questions the Tribunal's order under section 260(1). The court highlighted the distinction between sections 256(1), 256(2), 254(1), and 260(1) regarding reference applications. Section 256(1) allows for references from orders under section 254, while section 256(2) deals with cases where the Tribunal refuses to state a case on a legal question. In contrast, section 260(1) mandates the Tribunal to pass orders conforming to the High Court's judgment.

The court emphasized that a reference application under section 256 is not maintainable for orders under section 260(1) as the latter solely aims to implement the High Court's judgment. Since the Tribunal's order was in conformity with the High Court's decision, no reference was warranted. The court dismissed the reference application, citing its lack of maintainability. Consequently, no costs were awarded in the matter.