9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of law has been referred for the opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after April 1, 1976 ?" The controversy involved in the aforesaid question is where the penalty procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al order is passed. Thus, as on the date when the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner passed the final order, his jurisdiction to do so had been taken away by the amendment of section 274(2) of the Act, the order passed by him was without jurisdiction. The decision in the above case has been followed by this court in a number of other cases involving a similar controversy. A reference in this connec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to pass the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) on or after April 1, 1976, and the proper authority who had jurisdiction to deal with the matter of imposition of penalty was the Income-tax Officer." Following the view taken in the aforesaid case, with which we are bound, we hold that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the penalty order after the amendment of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
