9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court answering the question referred to it under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The question referred, to the High Court reads : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the penalty levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) in view of changed provisions of law ? The assessment year concerned herein is 1972-73. The High Court followed its earlier decision in R. Abdul Azeez v. CIT [1981] 128 ITR 547 and has answere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es one thousand, the Income-tax Officer shall refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who shall, for the purpose, have all the powers conferred under this Chapter for the imposition of penalty. Pending reference of the case before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, section 274(2) was amended with effect from April 1, 1971, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act,. 1970. The amended sub-section (2) read as follows : Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271, if in a case falling under clause (c) of that sub-section, the amount of income (as determined by the Income-tax Officer on assessment) in respect of which the particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case and on a true interpretation of section 274, as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to whom the case was referred prior to April 1, 1971, had jurisdiction to impose penalty ? The High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee whereupon the matter was brought to this court. This court at the outset stated the general principle applicable in this behalf in the following words : It may be stated at the outset that the general principle is that a law which brings about a change in the forum does not affect pending actions unless an intention to the contrary is clearly shown. One of the modes by which such an intention is shown is by making a provision for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forums. This court pointed out that the view taken by it is also the view taken by the Gujarat, Patna, Punjab and Haryana, Bombay, Calcutta and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, whereas the Allahabad and Karnataka High Courts had taken a contrary view. The court disapproved the contrary view taken by the Allahabad and Karnataka High Courts and approved the view taken by the other High Courts. In our opinion, the principle underlying the said decision is squarely applicable herein. In this case also, a reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in accordance with the law in force on the date of reference. Once the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was thus seized of the matter, he did not lose seizin thereof on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
