JUDGMENT B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.
1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following question :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Com missioner had no jurisdiction to pass the order of penalty on the date on which it was passed ?"
2. The question is concluded in favour of the assessee by a decision of this court in CIT v. Om Sons [1979] 116 ITR 215. In the said decision, it has been held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner must have jurisdiction not only on the date he initiated the penalty proceedings but also on the date he passed the final orders. Though this view is opposed to the view taken by a majority of the High Courts in the country, we are bound by the said Bench decision. Following the same, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.