| Case ID |
26078a46-4cb5-418e-8d47-1931cbc359cb |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE NO. 19 OF 1975 |
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the reference made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction. The ITO had the authority to impose penalty since the amount of concealed income did not exceed Rs. 25,000. The court concluded that the making of a reference to the IAC was not a mere ministerial act but required conscious determination of jurisdiction. As the reference was made when the ITO still had jurisdiction, the IAC's subsequent penalty imposition was without legal standing. Thus, the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty was upheld. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of Section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 concerning the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) in imposing penalties for concealed income. The facts detail that after the assessment year 1968-69, the ITO initiated penalty proceedings based on concealed income. However, the ITO referred the case to the IAC, claiming the penalty exceeded Rs. 1,000, although the concealed income was below Rs. 25,000. The key issue was whether the IAC had jurisdiction to impose the penalty given the changes in the law effective from April 1, 1971. The court determined that the ITO's reference was invalid since at the time of the reference, he still had jurisdiction, thereby invalidating the IAC's penalty order. The decision emphasizes the importance of jurisdiction in tax law and clarifies the roles of the ITO and IAC in penalty imposition, providing clarity on procedural correctness in tax assessments. |
| Court |
Bombay High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
M.H. Kania,
Smt. Sujata V.
|
| Lawyers |
R.J. Joshi,
J.P. Deodhar,
V.H. Patil,
K.B. Bhujle
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Gangadas Topandas
|
| Citations |
1984 SLD 900,
(1984) 150 ITR 437
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Mela Ram Jagdish Raj & Co. [1981] 132 ITR 897 (Punj. & Har.),
D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557 (SC),
CIT v. Kundan Lal [1983] 144 ITR 547 (Delhi)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
274(2),
271(1)(c)
|