9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to levy the penalties in all the cases after April 1, 1976? " The brief facts of the case are that in respect of the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, the assessee filed returns disclosing the total income at Rs. 13,861 and at Rs. 16,774, respectively. According to the Income-tax Officer, income from liquor business for both the years and income from annuity and share income from Mohanlal Gopilal and M. S. Kota for the assessment year 1968-69 had escaped assessment and, therefore, he issued notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. In pursuance of the notice as aforesaid, the assessee filed returns disclosing income, from SOP, share income from various firms and property income at Rs. 80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue is that the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose penalty cannot be taken away by an amendment which has not specifically divested the jurisdiction already acquired by him. The submission of learned counsel for the assessee is that the matter is now only an academic exercise as the judicial Member has also decided the point on the merits. We have considered over the matter. The question with regard to the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose penalty has been considered by the apex court in the case of CIT v. Dhadi Sahu [1993] 199 ITR 610, wherein it was observed that the general principle is that a law which brings about a change in the forum does not affect pending action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r before April 1, 1971, and the amendment under section 274 does not divest the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of his validly acquired jurisdiction. In the light of the above decision the relevant point to be seen is the date of making the reference by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The deletion of section 274(2), with effect from April 1, 1976, cannot be considered to have taken away his jurisdiction to levy penalty if the reference was validly made. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to levy penalty for all these years after April 1, 1976. Another dispute which was raised by learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
