Allowing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that on a bare perusal of sections 2(28C) and 274(2) it is clear that Joint Commissioner also includes Additional Commissioner, and, therefore approval granted by Additional Commissioner under section 274(2) on a permission sought by Assessing Officer before imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) was competent under law and, thus, Tribunal was not justified in quashing penalty order passed by Assessing Officer on mere premises that Additional Commissioner did not find place in section 274(2)(b) of the Act. (AY. 1998-99)
CIT v. Gyan Chand Jain (Late) (2022) 139 taxmann.com 318 (Raj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP granted to Revenue, Gyan Chand Jain (Late) v. CIT (2022) 287 Taxman 379 / 114 CCH 313 (SC)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Approval-Procedure-Tribunal was not justified in quashing penalty order passed by Assessing Officer on mere premises that Additional Commissioner did not find place in section 274(2)(b) of the Act. [S. 2(28C), 274(2)]