9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the application for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that non-mention of penalty amount will vitiate the entire order ?" The assessee is an individual and is a proprietor of Meghani Motors, Calcutta. The assessment year under reference is 1979-80. The return was filed on June 27, 1975, declaring an income o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in the case of N. N. Kotak v. CIT [1952] 21 ITR 18. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. None appeared for the assessee, though the matter was listed 4/5 times. The facts are not in dispute that the addition was sustained in the quantum appeal. The penalty has been deleted on the ground that in, the order of penalty, the amount of penalty has not been quantified. A similar issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... putable by a mere reference to the relevant provisions of the Act. Under section 271(1)(i) of the Act, a sum equal to two per cent. of the tax for every month during which the default continued, but not exceeding in the aggregate 50 per cent. of the tax, is leviable as penalty for a default under section 271(1)(a). The admitted position in this case is that the assessee was required to file a retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comes to Rs..." The computation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is given in sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of the Act which provides that "in cases referred to in clause (c), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income." When in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
