S.C : This matter relates to the jurisdiction of the IAC to impose the penalty.

Supreme Court Of India

Sadhu Ram vs. CIT

Sections 271(1)(c), 274(2)

S.C. Agrawal & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 5978 of 1983

12th March, 1997

Counsel Appeared

J.M. Khanna, for the Appellant : K.N. Shukla with K.N. Nagpal, C. Radha Krishna, Ms. A. Suhashini & B. Krishna Prasad, for the Respondent

ORDER

BY THE COURT :

This matter relates to the jurisdiction of the IAC to impose the penalty. The High Court has found that the IAC has jurisdiction to impose the penalty with reference to the date on which the order was passed by the ITO and not with reference to the date on which penalty was imposed. This view of the High Court is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in CIT vs. Dhadi Sahu (1992) 108 CTR (SC) 444 : (1993) 199 ITR 610 (SC) : TC49R.1103 wherein it has been held that once the IAC 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.

[Citation : 247 ITR 809]

Malcare WordPress Security