9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing question of law to this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 274(2) as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, with effect from April 1, 1971, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer had the jurisdiction to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) ? " The facts, as fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposable exceeded Rs, 1,000, and in view of the provisions of section 274 which existed at the time when the income-tax return was filed, the penalty could be levied only by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and not by the Income-tax Officer. The further plea which was taken was that the penalty could only be imposed within a period of two years from the date of the assessment which already ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal then referred the aforesaid question of law to this court. It is not disputed that, with the amendment of section 274, if the difference between the total income assessed and the income returned is less than Rs. 25,000, then the jurisdiction to levy penalty is with the Income-tax Officer. That section 274 is procedural in nature has been held by thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1973, section 274 had been amended. It is this amended provision which applies and it is only the Income-tax Officer who had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of penalty. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was within jurisdiction. In view of the above, the aforesaid question of law is answered in the affirmative and in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
