9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertiorari to quash an imposition of penalty under section 274(2) read with section 271 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ) by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Opposite Party No. 1). Assessee is an advocate at Cuttack. For the assessment year 1970-71, he made a return of income of Rs. 3,933. The Income-tax Officer (Opposite Party No. 2) by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner carried an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and urged that the imposition of penalty made beyond two years was contrary to law and that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose the penalty. The question of jurisdiction was not examined as pleaded by the petitioner, but the Tribunal agreed with the petitioner's submission that the imposition of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 253, after the expiration of a period of-- (i) two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or (ii) six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or, as the case may be, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the pendency of the said reference made under section 256(1) of the Act, this writ application was filed agitating the question of jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose the penalty. Petitioner's contention is that section 274(2) having been amended with effect from April 1, 1971, and reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under that provision being mainta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the footing that the decision of this court in the other case supports the stand of the petitioner. We would, accordingly, for the reasons indicated in the said decision hold that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, opposite party No. 1, had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 20th of February, 1973, when the impugned order imposing penalty was passed. Acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
