| Case ID |
3b0484ed-367f-4630-997e-108cb144d4cb |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in its decision that the Income Assessment Commissioner (IAC) had the jurisdiction to impose a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The key determination was that the reference made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to the IAC on 11-9-1975 was valid, and it fell within the provisions of section 274(2) as it stood prior to its deletion on 1-4-1976. The court clarified that the Act does not require a specific form for making such references, thus upholding the Tribunal's conclusion that the IAC acted within his jurisdiction when imposing the penalty on 23-3-1977. This case reinforces the interpretation of procedural compliance under tax law, particularly regarding the jurisdiction of tax authorities. |
| Summary |
In the case of Porwal Udyog (India) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed the jurisdiction of the Income Assessment Commissioner (IAC) in relation to the imposition of penalties under the Income-tax Act. The case arose from a reference made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to the IAC for the levying of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to alleged concealment of income. The reference was made on 11-9-1975, prior to the amendment that deleted section 274(2) which governed such references. The court concluded that since the reference was valid and complied with the existing rules at the time, the IAC had the authority to impose the penalty on 23-3-1977. This ruling underscores the importance of procedural adherence in tax law and clarifies that the absence of a prescribed form for references does not invalidate the process. The decision serves as a precedent for similar cases involving the jurisdiction of tax authorities, emphasizing the need for clear interpretations of legislative provisions in fiscal matters. |
| Court |
Madhya Pradesh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
G.G. Sohani,
B.B.L. Shrivastava
|
| Lawyers |
P.M. Choudhary,
R.C. Mukati
|
| Petitioners |
Porwal Udyog (India)
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
1987 SLD 3303,
(1987) 167 ITR 808
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. A.N. Tiwari [1980] 124 ITR 680 (MP)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
274(2),
271(1)(c)
|