9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instance of the Revenue, reads thus : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to impose the penalty by passing an order under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274(2) ? " The assessment year concerned is 1966-67. The Income-tax Officer made the order of assessment on September 28, 1970. He noted in the order that pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om April 1, 1971, and that thereafter the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction only in cases in which the minimum penalty imposable exceeded the sum of Rs. 25,000 whereas in paragraph 5 of this order, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had stated that the minimum penalty was Rs. 1,882. Following the earlier view taken by the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal that the amendment of secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the earlier matter nor in the matter before us was there any argument that the date upon which the Income-tax Officer had recorded his satisfaction in regard to the levy of penalty was other than the date upon which he had made a reference in regard to the quantum of penalty to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Mr. Thakar, learned counsel for the assessee, drew our attention to a judgment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d exceeded Rs. 25,000. This court came to the conclusion that the making of a reference under section 274(2) by the Income-tax Officer was more than a ministerial act. At the time when he made a reference, the Income-tax Officer had to make a conscious determination of the question of jurisdiction. When the Income-tax Officer made the reference in that matter, i.e., on June 28, 1971, it was the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
