1989 (5) TMI 8 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after the omission of section 274(2) from the statute book with effect from April 1, 1976.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a question of law regarding the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, post the omission of section 274(2) from the statute book with effect from April 1, 1976. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee after finding discrepancies in commission payments during assessment. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 44,180.36, which was challenged by the assessee before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, observed that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had lost jurisdiction over the case due to the omission of section 274(2) from the statute book. The Tribunal held that the amendment in the law regarding jurisdiction is procedural and should apply to pending as well as future actions. Therefore, the Tribunal canceled the penalty order based on the legal infirmity in the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's decision.

The High Court analyzed various judicial opinions on the matter. The Karnataka, Allahabad, and Kerala High Courts opined that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner loses jurisdiction post the omission of section 274(2), while the Punjab and Madhya Pradesh High Courts held a contrary view. The Court referred to past cases like Arya Confectionery Works v. CIT and CIT v. Mohinder Lal to support the differing opinions.

The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should be determined at the time of reference of the proceedings to him and not based on subsequent events. It was held that once the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is seized of the penalty proceedings lawfully, his jurisdiction cannot be divested by later amendments unless there is an express provision for the same. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal's decision and ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner did not lose jurisdiction over the case.

In conclusion, the Court answered the reference question in the negative and in favor of the Revenue, highlighting the importance of considering the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner at the time of reference and the impact of subsequent legal amendments on his authority.

The judgment was delivered by Judges Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee and Ajit Kumar Sengupta of the High Court of Calcutta in 1989.