9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner post-amendment of section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Retrospective application of procedural amendments. Summary: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Post-Amendment The primary issue was whether the Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the grounds that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lost jurisdiction due to the amendment of section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, deriving income from a partnership business, had filed returns for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, which were later revised by the Income-tax Officer to include additional income sources. This led to the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), which were referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. However, the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act of 1970, effective from April 1, 1971, altered section 274(2), changing the jurisdictional threshold from a minimum penalty exceeding Rs. 1,000 to cases where the concealed income exceeded Rs. 25,000. The Tribunal held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lost jurisdiction as the difference between the returned and assessed income did not exceed Rs. 25,000. Issue 2: Retrospective Application of Procedural Amendments The court examined whether the amendment to section 274(2) applied retrospectively, affecting pending cases. It was noted that procedural laws generally operate retrospectively unless specified otherwise. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that changes in procedural law apply to ongoing cases. The court referenced several cases, including Anant Gopal Sheorey v. State of Bombay and Nani Gopal Mitra v. State of Bihar, which supported the principle that procedural amendments are retrospective. The court also discussed the Calcutta High Court's decision in Bireswar Moral v. India Bhusan Kundu and the Bombay High Court's decision in Shiv Bhagwan Moti Ram Saraoji v. Onkarmal Ishar Dass, which dealt with jurisdictional changes due to procedural amendments. The court concluded that since the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had not passed final orders before the amendment, and the references became incompetent due to the procedural change, he lost jurisdiction to complete the proceedings. Thus, the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalties was upheld. Conclusion: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a true interpretation of section 274, as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act of 1970, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to whom the case had been referred prior to 1971 had no jurisdiction to impose penalty. The assessee was awarded costs of the references, with a hearing fee assessed at Rs. 100.
|
