2000 PLP 118 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus A. KANAGASABAI MUDALIAR by Legal Heirs
| Citation | 2000 PLP 118 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 232 I T R 810 |
| Bench Members | K. A. Thanikkachalam and N. V. Balasubramanian, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus A. KANAGASABAI MUDALIAR by Legal Heirs |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 118 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 118 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 232 I T R 810 bench comprising: K. A. Thanikkachalam and N. V. Balasubramanian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 118 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus A. KANAGASABAI MUDALIAR by Legal Heirs). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Jurisdiction of I.A.C.
Amendment divesting I.A.C. of jurisdiction
Reference to I.A.C. made before amendment
I.A.C. competent to levy penalty
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.271(1)(c) &
274. Where, for the assessment, years 1966-67 and 1971-72, the assessment was completed on March 26, 1976, and reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, [ 961 on March 26, 1976: Held, that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy penalty by order, dated March 27, 1976. CIT v. Smt. R. Sharadamma (1996) 219 ITR 671 (SC) fol. R. Abdul Azeez (R.) v. CIT (1981) 128 ITR 547 (Kar.) ref. C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
K. A. THANIKKACHALAM, J.
At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred the following question for, the opinion of this Court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in this case and accordingly in cancelling the penalty of Rs.26, 404/51 ,553 for the assessment year 1966-67/1971- 72?" The point for consideration is whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 271(1 j(c) in this case for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1971-72. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of R. Abdul Azeez v. CIT (1981) 128 ITR 547, held that there was no jurisdiction on the part of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner after amendment to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the present case especially after the amendment to section 274 of the Income-tax Act with effect from. April 1, 1976, as per the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, which has taken away the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The decision of the Karnataka High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. R. Sharadamma (1996) 219 ITR 671, wherein held that (headnote): "Once the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was thus seized of the matter, he did not lose seizin there of on account of the deletion of subsection (2) of section 274 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner did not lose the jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings pending before him on March 31, 1976. He was entitled to continue with those proceedings and pass appropriate order according to law." In the present case, the penalty had been levied on March 27, 1976, for the assessment years1966-67 and 1971-72. The assessment was completed on March 26,1976. Reference by the Income-tax Officer was made on March 26,1976. On these facts and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra the order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. Since the levy of penalty was not dealt with on the merits, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the case on the merits in accordance with law and after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned. No costs. M.B.A./3278/FC Order accordingly.