9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (4) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncealment. but he held that the ITO had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty. So he cancelled the penalty order. The ITO appeals against that order. The cross objection by the assessee is about the fact and quantum of concealment. 2. We propose to deal only with a questions of law about the jurisdiction of the ITO because to our mind it appears that the view taken by the AAC is on very firm and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of which the particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished exceeds a sum of Rs. 25,000, the ITO shall refer the case to the IAC. The assessment in this case was completed after the said amendment came into force. The amount of income in respect of which the particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished dos not exceed a sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... swer is against the Department. In income-tax penalty matters the law with regard to jurisdiction of the Officer who should impose penalty is the law as on the date on which the return in which concealment took place was furnished. The decision of the Supreme Court in 77 ITR 107 (SC) (Jain Brothers Ors. vs. Union of India Ors.), cited by the departmental representative, is of no assistance. Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation that are procedural. Questions like jurisdiction of the Officer and quantum of penalty are substantive laws. So in this case it is the IAC who had jurisdiction to levy penalty. The ITO should have referred the case to the IAC for imposition of penalty. So we dismiss the appeal preferred by the ITO because the penalty was levied by the ITO who had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
