RAMNATH GOENKA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee. The first question is common to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. That question is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) having held that the law for the levy of the penalty is as it stood on the date when the penalty was imposed, that is as amended with effect from April 1, 1976.

(2.) THAT question is required to be answered against the assessee, and in favour of the Revenue in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. R. Sharadamma [1996] 219 ITR 671, wherein, the apex court held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner does not lose the jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings pending before him on March 31, 1976, by virtue of the deletion of Sub-section (2) of Section 274 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976. The court held that (headnote) :

(3.) THIS court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Murugan Timber Depot [1978] 113 ITR 99, after considering Sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) in Sub-section 271(1)(c) of the Act held that (page 104) :