9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment year 1964-65, the assessee filed return declaring his income at Rs. 216 from house property. The assessment was, however, framed on a total income of Rs. 22,930. This income included income from commission to the extent of Rs. 22,712. The assessee was a commission agent in the business of sale of gold and he had himself agreed to be assessed at this figure. The order of assessment was pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l is right in law in holding that the jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) vested with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Officer should have referred the case to him instead of proceeding with it himself ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the penalty order passed by the Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne, the law which concerns the jurisdiction, has to be taken to be prospective. In the present case, as is clear from he order of the ITO dated 29th February, 1971, the ITO applied his mind and initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty against the assessee as observed by him in the order. It is at that point of time that the question of jurisdiction in accordance with the law then prevailing, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant notice to the assessee, applies to the penalty proceedings qua the jurisdiction of the authority under the Act, because the power of the original authority or the Tribunal under the Act to impose a penalty is procedural in nature. The learned counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to the following observations made by the same Division Bench (p. 899) " It is well settled that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta and the ratio of the case appears in the earlier part of the judgment quoted above. We are bound to follow the view taken by the Division Bench. We, accordingly, answer the first question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Regarding the second question, the learned counsel for the Revenue has relied upon CIT v. Sadhu Ram [1981] 127 ITR 517 (P H), wherein it has been laid dow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
