2001 PLP 2444 (PTD)
SADHU RAM Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2444 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 247 I T R 809 |
| Bench Members | S. S. Agrawal and G. B. Pattanaik, JJ |
| Parties | SADHU RAM Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX |
| Primary Law | Income tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2444 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2444 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 247 I T R 809 bench comprising: S. S. Agrawal and G. B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2444 (PTD) (SADHU RAM Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- J.M. Khanna, Advocate for Appellant.
- K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (K.N. Nagpal, C. Radha Krishna and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated February 8, 1980, of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in I.T.R. No.58 of 1975). ‑‑‑‑Penalty‑‑‑Concealment of income‑‑‑Jurisdiction of IAC‑‑‑Is with reference to date on which ITO passes order referring the matter to him‑‑‑Not with reference to date on which penalty imposed‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.271(1)(c) & 274(2). The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction under section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income, with reference to the date on which the order referring the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was passed by the Income‑tax Officer and not with reference to the date on which the penalty is imposed. Once the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has validly exercised jurisdiction to pass the order imposing a penalty, the amendment to section 274(2) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, would not affect his jurisdiction. CIT v. Dhadi Sahu (1993) 199 ITR 610 (SC) fol. CIT v. Sadhu Ram (1981) 127 ITR 517 affirmed.
Judgment & Decree
(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated February 8, 1980, of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in I.T.R. No.58 of 1975). ‑‑‑‑Penalty‑‑‑Concealment of income‑‑‑Jurisdiction of IAC‑‑‑Is with reference to date on which ITO passes order referring the matter to him‑‑‑Not with reference to date on which penalty imposed‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.271(1)(c) & 274(2). The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction under section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income, with reference to the date on which the order referring the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was passed by the Income‑tax Officer and not with reference to the date on which the penalty is imposed. Once the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has validly exercised jurisdiction to pass the order imposing a penalty, the amendment to section 274(2) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, would not affect his jurisdiction. CIT v. Dhadi Sahu (1993) 199 ITR 610 (SC) fol. CIT v. Sadhu Ram (1981) 127 ITR 517 affirmed. J.M. Khanna, Advocate for Appellant. K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (K.N. Nagpal, C. Radha Krishna and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent. This matter relates to the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose the penalty. The High Court (see (1981) 127 ITR 517 (P & H) has found that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to impose the penalty with reference to the date on which the order was passed by the Income‑tax Officer and not with reference to the date on which the penalty was imposed. This view of the High Court is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in CIT v. Dhadi Sahu (1993) 199 ITR 610, wherein it has been held that once the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has validly exercised jurisdiction to pass the order imposing a penalty, the Amending Act would not affect his jurisdiction. In view of the said decision, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. M.B.A./1006/FC Appeal dismissed.