(1.) THE following question which has been referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jullundur, for the opinion of this court pertains to the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to decide the question of penalty and the consequent imposition of penalty of Rs. 58,000 by him, vide order dated February 25, 1978, under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act :
(2.) MR. Ashok Bhan, appearing for the petitioner, has canvassed that the order dated December 13, 1979, of the Tribunal holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to deal with the question of imposition of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on the date he passed the order imposing penalty, i. e. , February 25, 1978, because as a result of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Amending Act"), which took effect from April 1, 1976, the Income-tax Officer alone was competent to deal with the question of imposition of penalty and the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner envisaged under Sub-section (2) of Section 271 of the Act stood abolished as a result of the deletion of Sub-section (2) of Section 274 with effect from April 1, 1976, as a result of the Amending Act, ran counter to the Division Bench decisions of this court in CIT v. Raman Industries [1980] 121 ITR 405, CIT v. Sadhu Ram [1981] 127 ITR 517, CIT v. Mela Ram Jagdish Raj and Co. [1981] 132 ITR 897 and Telu Ram Raunqi Ram v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 401, besides the decisions of other High Courts, namely, CIT v. R. Ochhavlal and Co. [1976] 105 ITR 518 (Guj), CIT v. Royal Motor Car Co. [1977] 107 ITR 753 (Guj), Laltaprasad Goenka v. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 924 (Bom), Continental Commercial Corpn. v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 170 (Mad), CIT v. Eastern Development Corpn. [1982] 135 ITR 516 (Cal), Addl. CIT v. Dr. Khaja Khutabuddinkhan [1978] 114 ITR 905 (AP) and CIT v. Balabhai and Co. [1980] 122 ITR 301 (Guj ).
(3.) PERUSAL of the judgment of the Tribunal dated December 13, 1979, would show that the Tribunal, inter alia, has based its decision on the Allahabad High Court judgment in CIT v. Om Sons [1979] 116 ITR 215, which view has been reiterated by the same High Court in a judgment in CIT v. Pearey Lal Radhey Raman [1979] 117 ITR 319.