1980 (11) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred to this court, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ( or short " the Act "), the following question of law: " Whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to impose the penalty in question under section 271 (1)(c) after the amendment by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, vesting the power to impose the penalty on t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was correct and fair but the addition under other sources should be reduced to Rs. 14,000. Penalty proceedings were initiated by the ITO on March 29, 1975, that being the date on which he finalised the assessment. Under the provisions of s. 274(2) of the Act as it then stood, the ITO referred the matter to the IAC who after hearing the assessee passed an order on December 4, 1976, imposing a pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce has been made. More or less the same question has been considered in detail by this court in the judgment recently delivered in ITR No. 42 of 1976 [CIT v. Varkey Chacko [1982] 136 ITR 733 (Ker)], wherein after a review of the case law on the subject, this court has held that the competence of the authority to exercise the power under s. 271 (1)(c) is to be determined with reference to the la .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X