1995 (8) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass any order of penalty under section 271(1) on or after April 1, 1976 ? " The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Varanasi Range, Varanasi, by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Om Sons [1979] 116 ITR 215. On that basis, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was not only vested with the jurisdiction initially but also must be clothed with the power to decide the matter when the final order is made. On that basis, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was set aside. This fact is not disputed that the provision o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... diction from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 1, 1976. Thus, the fact remains that the concealment of income was found for the assessment year 1973-74 for which the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was empowered to impose penalty. The point in issue has been considered by the apex court in CIT v. Dhadi Sahu [1993] 199 ITR 610 where their Lordships reversing the view expressed by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X