9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that section 274(2) is procedural and not substantive thereby confirming the penalties imposed by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70 ?" The facts in a nutshell for deciding the aforesaid question are that the assessee submitted his returns in respect of the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the original returns were filed prior to April 1, 1971, the amendment of section 274(2) of the Act which was in the nature of a procedural provision had no bearing on the case of the assessee and it is that law which was applicable at the time when the original returns were filed which would apply to the facts of the instant case. According to him, since at that time jurisdiction to impose penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner was divested of this jurisdiction. The matter came up for consideration before Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Om Sons [1979] 116 ITR 215. It was, after construing the provisions of section 274(2) of the Act as amended by the Amendment Act of 1970, held that if on the date when the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner passed his final order imposing penalty his jurisdiction to do s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdiction of that officer has by a statutory provision been taken away before final orders could be passed in the penalty proceedings. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 1. Suffice it to say that, so far as this case is concerned, it was a case dealing with the quantum of penalty and not with the jurisdiction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
