9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lising the assessment the ITO came to the conclusion that the assessee bad concealed particulars of its income. Since the minimum penalty leviable exceeded Rs. 25,000 he referred the case to the IAC under s. 274(2) of the I.T. Act. From the regular assessment the assessee preferred an appeal which was decided partly in its favour. On appeal by the Department, the Incometax Appellate Tribunal by it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pending. The petitioner also made an application under s. 254(2) for recalling the order dated 21st September, 1978. The stand taken was that s. 274 had been amended with effect from April 1, 1976, by the T.L. (Amend.) Act 1975, as a consequence of which the IAC had no jurisdiction to impose penalty. The Tribunal dismissed the application by its, order dated July 27, 1979, observing that there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) of that sub-section, the amount of income (as determined by the Income-tax Officer on assessment) in respect of which the particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished exceeds a sum of twenty-five thousand rupees, the Income-tax Officer shall refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who shall, for the purpose, have all the powers conferred under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t introduced with effect from April 1, 1976. Learned counsel for the Department contended that the petition was highly belated and it was not a fit case for interference by this court. It is true that the impugned order of the IAC was passed on January 24, 1977, and the appellate order of the Tribunal on September 21, 1978, but the petitioner has put forward a plausible explanation for the delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ching this court late . This question may be considered from another angle also. The order of the IAC is wholly without jurisdiction. The petitioner shall have right, to challenge it whenever it is sought to be enforced against it. It may be that the order was passed in January, 1977, but if, that order is sought to be enforced today, it would give rise to a, cause of action: to, the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
