1980 (4) TMI 28 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment due to cash credits
2. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
3. Jurisdiction of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) to impose penalty
4. Effect of the amendment of section 274(2) of the Act
5. Initiation of penalty proceedings and jurisdiction

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dealt with the reopening of assessment for the assessment year 1965-66 due to cash credits amounting to Rs. 15,000. The original assessment was revised, and the income was adjusted to Rs. 40,592 after surrendering the cash credit. Subsequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated against the assessee, leading to a penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC).

The primary issue revolved around the jurisdiction of the IAC to levy the penalty, as the Tribunal found that the concealed income was below Rs. 25,000, thereby questioning the IAC's authority post the amendment of section 274(2) of the Act. The Tribunal held that the ITO, not the IAC, had the jurisdiction to impose the penalty in this case. The Tribunal's decision was based on the amendment's effect, which raised questions regarding the retrospective application of the amendment.

The High Court analyzed the retrospective application of the amendment to section 274(2) and emphasized that the amendment did not indicate retrospective effect. Citing precedents, the court held that the amendment affecting vested rights operates prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise. The court clarified that the jurisdiction to try a case is a vested right determined by the law in force at the case's initiation.

Regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings and jurisdiction, the court highlighted that the satisfaction of the assessing officer during assessment precedes the penalty proceedings' initiation. The court rejected the argument that penalty proceedings are initiated only upon reference by the ITO to the IAC, emphasizing that the jurisdiction to levy penalty must align with the prevailing law at the initiation of penalty proceedings.

The court disagreed with decisions from other High Courts suggesting that penalty jurisdiction is a procedural matter, asserting that it pertains to jurisdiction rather than mere procedure. Ultimately, the court answered the questions posed by the Tribunal in the negative, affirming that the IAC lacked jurisdiction to impose the penalty, ruling in favor of the revenue. Both judges concurred with the decision, settling the matter in favor of the revenue.