9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61, are at the instance of the Revenue in respect of the same assessee for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, for answering the following questions of law, namely: Assessment year 1969-70 "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty order passed under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, holding that the Inspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r initiated penalty proceedings under section 18( 1 )(c) of the Wealth-tax Act and referred the case for levy of penalty to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax on December 16, 1976. By an order dated March 2, 1977, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 3,70,333. Similarly for the assessment year 1970-71, the wealth-tax return was filed by the assessee on July ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1975 and its substitution by new subsection (3). Hence these references at the instance of the Revenue. We have already held in a number of income-tax matters relating to imposition of penalty under section 27](1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that after the amendment made in section 274 by the deletion of sub-section (2) thereof by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt following the view taken in CIT v. Shri Rant Prakash Saraf [1986] 160 ITR 860 (MP). The same view his to be taken in respect of the corresponding provisions in the Wealth-tax Act also. It follows that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in respect of both these assessment years had no jurisdiction to impose penalty after the above change in the Wealth-tax Act in the references made by the We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
