1974 (4) TMI 10 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on minimum penalty imposable on the assessee.

Analysis:
The case involved the question of whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) was justified in canceling the penalty imposed under sections 271(1)(c) and 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1966-67. The assessee, M/s. India Hotel, Nainital, was initially assessed to income tax on August 16, 1966. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) referred the case to the IAC for imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,000 as he believed the assessee had concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars. However, during the penalty proceedings, the Appellate Authority reduced the taxable income, making the minimum penalty imposable less than Rs. 1,000. The IAC still imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000, leading to an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench.

The Tribunal set aside the IAC's order, stating that once the minimum penalty imposable became less than Rs. 1,000, the IAC lost jurisdiction to deal with the penalty proceedings. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation. It held that the IAC's jurisdiction to impose a penalty is determined at the time of the ITO's reference based on the minimum penalty imposable. The reduction in assessment post-reference does not affect the IAC's jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the IAC's authority is not ousted by subsequent alterations in the assessment.

The Court also referred to an amendment in section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, which clarified that the ITO's reference to the IAC is based on the minimum penalty payable on the income as assessed by the ITO, not as determined in appeal. The amendment reinforced the legislative intent that the IAC's jurisdiction is fixed at the time of assessment by the ITO. Any changes post-assessment do not impact the IAC's authority to handle penalty proceedings. Consequently, the Court answered the question in the negative, supporting the department's position. No costs were awarded as the assessee did not appear in the case.