9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (5) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect from April 1, 1971 ?" The assessee was assessed in the capacity of an individual. The assessment years in this consolidated reference are 1967-68 and 1968-69. The assessee is a contractor executing contracts in the Division of Koshi Project. The original assessments for the above two years were completed on May 30, 1970, on incomes of Rs. 4,890 and Rs. 6,940 for the two assessment years respectively. Later, the Income-tax Officer came to learn that the assessee had not disclosed certain payments received by him during the relevant years. A proceeding under section 147 of the Act was, therefore, initiated. In the course of the said proceeding, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The correctness of the reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has not been disputed. The only question is whether consequent upon the amendment of section 274(2) of the Act, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was divested of that jurisdiction which he possessed earlier. This precise question had come up for consideration before us in CIT v. Ganga Dayal Sarju Prasad [1985] 155 ITR 618 (Pat) (Tax Case No. 6 of 1976 disposed of on September 4, 1984) and in CIT v. Jankidas Mohanlal [1987] 163 ITR 756 (Pat) (Tax Case No. 62 of 1976 disposed of on March 28, 1985). The leading judgments in both the cases were delivered by my learned brother, N. Ahmad J. The ratio of the two decisions is that once a jurisdiction had been conferred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, section 275 had been amended and, therefore, the proceedings as they were pending on April 1, 1971, would be covered in terms of the said amendment. The Tribunal was of the view that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ought to have kept in view the amended provisions of section 274(2) of the Act. In that view, there was no point in mentioning section 275 of the Act in the order of reference. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to levy penalty in view of the amended provision of section 274 of the Act. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was fully within his powers to impose such a penalty. For the reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
