| Case ID |
d5118291-0ec7-46d3-bcbb-6645bb637bff |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Tax Case No. 562 of 1983 (Reference No. 302 of 198 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 06, 1997 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to complete the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even though the order was passed after the amendment of section 274(2) which came into effect from April 1, 1976. The Tribunal was incorrect in its ruling that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to impose the penalty. The decision was based on precedents which established that the power to levy penalties remained intact despite the amendments to the law. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the penalty appeal on its merits, confirming the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's authority to impose penalties under the Income Tax Act. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) in imposing penalties for concealment of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core issue was whether the IAC had the authority to complete penalty proceedings that were initiated prior to the amendment of section 274(2) in 1976. The court emphasized that jurisdiction is determined by the law in effect at the time of the reference, not solely by the timing of the order. The decision reiterates the importance of understanding the implications of legislative amendments on ongoing proceedings. The ruling affirms the IAC's jurisdiction, setting a precedent for similar cases in tax law. This case is significant for tax practitioners and taxpayers alike, highlighting the nuances of procedural law in tax assessments and the potential for penalties in cases of income concealment. Keywords such as 'Income Tax Act', 'penalty proceedings', 'jurisdiction', and 'amendment' are critical for understanding the implications of this case. It serves as a vital reference for legal professionals dealing with tax litigation, ensuring compliance with procedural norms under the Income Tax Act. |
| Court |
Madras High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
K. A. THANIKKACHALAM,
S. M. SIDICKK
|
| Lawyers |
C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner,
Nemo for the Assessee
|
| Petitioners |
COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
A. VADIVEL CHETTIAR
|
| Citations |
2000 SLD 341,
2000 PTD 2543,
(1999) 236 ITR 910
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. R. Sharadamma (Smt.) (1996) 219 ITR 671 (SC),
CIT v Seth Purushothamdas Dwarkadas (1996) 221 ITR 304 (Mad.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
271,
274
|