1997 (2) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... question for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) in this case and accordingly in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 65,000 imposed for the ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ready seized of the matter, the jurisdiction continued to vest with him. The Tribunal held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to levy penalty. Accordingly, the penalty was cancelled, which was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. However, this court in CIT v. Seth Purushothamdas Dwarkadas [1996] 221 ITR 304, held that when the penalty proceedings under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner did not lose the jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings pending before him on March 31, 1976. He was entitled to continue with those proceedings and pass appropriate orders according to law. In the present case, the Tribunal held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy penalty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X