9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1973-74. Detailed Analysis: The case involved the assessment year 1973-74 concerning an assessee who initially filed a return showing income of Rs. 33,965. Subsequently, certain cash, stocks, and books of account were seized during a search operation, leading to penalty proceedings for concealment of income. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000 under section 271(1)(c) read with sub-section (2) of section 274 of the Act. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal vacated the penalty order on the ground that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty as sub-section (2) of section 274 was deleted with effect from April 1, 1976. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the penalty imposition due to the lack of jurisdiction. The central issue revolved around the interpretation of the law concerning the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner post the deletion of sub-section (2) of section 274. The court analyzed the amendments made to the Act, specifically section 274(2), which required the Income-tax Officer to refer cases where the penalty exceeded Rs. 25,000 to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for imposition. The court considered conflicting views on whether the authority's jurisdiction should be determined based on the law at the initiation of proceedings or throughout the proceedings until the final order. It was established that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lost jurisdiction to impose penalties post the deletion of section 274(2). The court cited precedents where similar issues were addressed, emphasizing that the authority initiating penalty proceedings must retain jurisdiction until the final order is passed. The court concurred with previous decisions that held the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lacked authority to impose penalties after the deletion of section 274(2). Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the proper authority to impose the penalty was the Income-tax Officer, not the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In conclusion, the court answered the question posed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the affirmative, favoring the assessee and ruling against the Department. No costs were awarded in the matter.
|
