1998 PLP 2233 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus K.K. AGARWAL
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2233 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 221 I T R 877 |
| Bench Members | M. Katju and Dr. B. S. Chauhan, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus K.K. AGARWAL |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2233 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2233 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 221 I T R 877 bench comprising: M. Katju and Dr. B. S. Chauhan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2233 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus K.K. AGARWAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Law applicable to assessment
Jurisdiction of I.A.C. to pass order of penalty under S.271(1)(c) on or after 1-4-1976
Tribunal cancelling penalty imposed by I.A.C.
Order of Tribunal set aside in view of Supreme Court's decision
Matter remanded
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.271(1)(c). Where the Tribunal, following a High Court decision, had held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass any order of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on or after April 1, 1976, and cancelled the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the decision of the High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court, on a reference, the Court disposed of the reference holding that the order of the Tribunal was liable to be set aside and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for disposal afresh on the merits in the light of the Supreme Court decision CIT v. Dhadi Sahu (1993) 199 ITR 610 (SC) and CIT v. Om Sons (1979) 116 ITR 215 (All.) ref
Judgment & Decree
Where the Tribunal, following a High Court decision, had held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass any order of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on or after April 1, 1976, and cancelled the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the decision of the High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court, on a reference, the Court disposed of the reference holding that the order of the Tribunal was liable to be set aside and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for disposal afresh on the merits in the light of the Supreme Court decision CIT v. Dhadi Sahu (1993) 199 ITR 610 (SC) and CIT v. Om Sons (1979) 116 ITR 215 (All.) ref This is an income-tax reference under section 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in which the following question has been referred for our opinion: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, the Appellate 'Tribunal was justified in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass any order of penalty under section 271(l)(c) on/after April 1, 1976, and in that view cancelling the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner?" The relevant assessment year is 1973-74 and for this year the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(l)(c), on October 20, 1978, imposed a penalty of Rs.20,
000. The matter came up to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which following the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Om Sons (1979) 116 ITR 215, held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose penalty. Hence, this reference. The decision of this Court in the case of Om Sons (1979) 116 ITR 215 has been reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Dhadi Sahu (1993) 199 ITR 610.. In view of this, we set aside the order of the Tribunal, dated May 21, 1979, and remand the matter to the Tribunal to pass a fresh order on the merits to the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhadi Sahu's case (1993) 199 ITR
610. M.B.A./1337/FC Case remanded.