JUDGMENT
This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the Revenue, to answer the following question of law, namely :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that after April 1, 1976, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to levy any penalty ?”
The relevant assessment year is 1969-70. The question of jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to levy penalty depends on the date on which the reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was made by the Income-tax Officer as held in a series of decisions of this court. It was held that where the reference by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was made subsequent to April 1, 1976, when sub-section (2) of section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was deleted, the reference was incompetent and gave no jurisdiction to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose penalty; but when such a reference was made prior to April 1, 1976, it was saved even after deletion of sub-section (2) of section 274 and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to impose penalty in a reference made to him and pending prior to April 1, 1976. (See CIT v. Sri Niwas Rice and Oil Industries [1988] 169 ITR 253, 255 (Raj)).
Learned counsel for the Revenue has informed us on the basis of the record that the reference in the present case was made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on March 14, 1972, and it was a reference pending before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. This being so, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to impose penalty. The contrary view taken by the Tribunal is, therefore, not justified.
Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by holding that the Tribunals view is not justified.