9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the following question of law for opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ?" On the submission advanced by learned counsel for the assessee, which we are inclined to accept, we do not consider it necessary to set out facts in detail. Penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the IAC having imposed a penalty on March 30, 1977, when he ceased to have jurisdiction, the order passed by him was a nullity. In CIT v. Om Sons [1979] 116 ITR 215 (All), a similar controversy came up for consideration before this court. By the T.L. (Amend.) Act, 1970, with effect from April 1, 1971, sub-s. (2) of s. 274 was amended and, in cases where minimum the penalty imposed exceeded Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the T.L.(Amend.) Act, 1975, itself was considered. We are in respectful agreement with the enunciation of law by the two Division Benches and are of opinion that although proceedings for levy of penalty were validly referred by the ITO to the IAC, its continuance after April, 1976, and the ultimate order on March, 1977, by the IAC were without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, was a nullity. That which is a nullity is non est in law. It could not have, therefore, been confirmed by the Tribunal. Nor can this court answer the reference by saying that the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty when the order was without jurisdiction. Then the question whether the Tribunal should not have confirmed the penalty embraces in it all possible aspects of a challe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
