9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1975-76, proceedings under section 271 (1)(a) were also initiated. In response to the notices issued proposing the levy of penalty for the above three years, the respondent-assessee submitted written explanations against levy of penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. Regarding the assessment year 1975-76, in proceedings under section 271(1)(a) of the Act, the respondent assessee requested for a month's time to submit his explanation. It does not appear that he filed his explanation thereafter. Subsequent to the issue of notices, there was a change in the personnel or incumbent. The successor Income-tax Officer, without issuing any further notices to the assessee or an intimation of the change, levied penalties for all the three years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act read with sections 271 and 274 of the Act arises for consideration in these cases, it was brought to our notice that the decisions in Shop Siddegowda Family v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 57 (Mys), A. C. Metal Works v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 14 (Raj), Murlidhar Tejpal v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 129 (Pat), Hulekar Sons v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 130 (Mys), Kanailal Gatani v. CIT[1963] 48 ITR 262 (Cal) and Pradip Lamp Works v. CIT [1977 Tax LR 760 (Cal) supports the view of the Revenue that where one Incometax Officer issues notice calling upon the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be levied and the assessee submits his explanation in writing, but does not choose to appear or ask for a personal hearing or fails to demand a rehearing under section 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the common order of the Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 428 to 431 (Cochin) of 1981 dated July 7, 1983. Accordingly, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to refer questions Nos.1 and 3 specified in paragraph 12 of the original petition for the decision of this court along with the statement of the case. The said questions are extracted hereinbelow : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on an interpretation of section 129 of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal is right in interfering with the penalty order by confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
