9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act "), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 18(1)(c) on December 3, 1977, after the amendment of section 18(3) with effect from April 1. 1976, by the Taxati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought a reference and it is at the instance of the assessee that the aforesaid question has been referred to this court for its opinion. When the matter came up for consideration before this court, by an order dated July 2, 1981, this court directed the Tribunal to send supplementary statement of the case and to state the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty is imposable under clause (c) aforesaid, exceeds a sum of twenty-five thousand rupees, the Wealth-fax Officer shall not issue any direction under sub-section (1) for payment by way of penalty without the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner." Thus, from April 1, 1976, the IAC has no jurisdiction to impose penalty. While considering similar provisions in the I.T. Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e IAC were substituted by the aforesaid provisions of s. 18(3) of the Act. In our opinion, therefore, on the facts and in the cirumstances of the case, the IAC of Wealth-tax had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act, after the amendment of s. 18(3) with effect from April 1, 1976, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. Our answer to the question referred to this court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
