1997 (2) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e following question, for the opinion of this court, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the "Act": "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on January 27, 1978, as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssee, imposed a penalty of Rs. 32,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, contending that sub-section (2) of section 274 of the Act providing for a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having been omitted with effect from April 1, 1976, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, the power of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1975, which came into effect from April 1, 1976. A similar view was also taken by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Smt. R. Sharadamma [1996] 219 ITR 671. In view of the foregoing decisions, the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is having jur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X