COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PANDE S D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal has referred to this Court the following two questions as questions of law under S. 256 (1) of the IT Act, 1961:

(2.) IN view of this Court's judgment in the case of CIT vs. Gangadas Topandas (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 175 : (1984) 150 ITR 437 (Bom) and in the case of CIT vs. Abdullabhai Hassanali (1988) 169 ITR 22 (Bom), it has to be held that, for the purpose of considering whether reference to the IAC under S. 274(2) of the IT Act is valid or not, the law on the date of reference is relevant.

(3.) MR . Jetley, learned counsel for the Department, made an attempt to persuade us to assume that the date of reference was March 7, 1970, on which date the ITO had issued notice to the assessee under S. 274. Incidentally, that is also the date on which the assessment was completed. He stated that the notice under S. 274 and the reference of the penalty proceeding to the IAC by the ITO are generally issued/made simultaneously. We do not find it possible to accept Shri Jetley's statement, particularly as, in both the cases decided by our Court, it was found as a fact that the assessments were made and notices under S. 274 were issued long before the reference was made by the ITO to the IAC. It cannot, therefore, be assumed, as contended by Shri Jetley, that the order of reference was made on the date on which the order of the same assessment or notice under S. 274 was issued by the ITO.