9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (11) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the default under s. 271(1) (a) of the Act. The assessee has brought to our notice the fact that a similar application made by the Revenue in the case of Smt. Eva Raha (M. P. No. 21 (Gau) 22 (Gau) of 1974-75 in ITA Nos. 709 (Gau) 710 (Gau) of 1972-73) was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dt. 6th March, 1975 by holding that the matter was not free from debate and hence there was no err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amending statute to indicate that the retrospective amendment will come into operation notwithstanding that the penalty proceedings had became final on appeal. The Appellant Tribunal following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.M. Shah(1) has held on an identical application in the case of Smt. Eva Raha that the issue was debatable and hence rectification cannot be carried ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on retrospectively and we found that in that case there were clear indications of the intention of the Parliament to grant exemption under s. 10 (6) even though the limitation for making the assessments in respect of the earlier asst. yrs governed by the amendment had expired. On the other hand, this is a matter where the Revenue wants the penalty to be enhanced and when even in the case of a tax, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
