S.S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THE question of law referred for the opinion of this court is in the following terms : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to impose penalty of Rs. 11,000 on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?"
(2.) THE matter here arises in the context of the deletion of Section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976. The law is now well-settled that the case would be deemed to have been referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on the recording of the conclusion by the Income-tax Officer that the amount of concealed income exceeded Rs. 25,000, the actual reference of the case being only a ministerial act to be performed by the officer. This being so, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner would be deemed to have been seized of the penalty proceedings the moment the said finding is recorded by the Income-tax Officer and the law applicable at that moment has to be applied to determine as to who has the jurisdiction to impose the requisite penalty. In the present case, the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, imposing penalty of Rs. 11,000 for concealment of income, was no doubt passed on March 28, 1978, on a reference made by the Income-tax Officer, on July 2, 1977, but as the return had been filed on August 30, 1973, and the requisite satisfaction had been recorded by the Income-tax Officer before April 1, 1976, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of March 28, 1978. Such being the position in law, as also laid down by this court in I.T.R. No. 55 of 1981 (CIT v. Prem Singh Deviditta Mal--[1989] 177 ITR 236 (P & H)), decided on December 2, 1988, the reference is answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.;