9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (9) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the I.T. Act, 1961 (briefly " the Act "), for the opinion of this court. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the penalty order instead of setting it aside for a fresh hearing and disposal by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ? " The material facts lie in a brief compass. The IAC imposed penalty of Rs. 37,412 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... barred from passing a fresh order of penalty. For this the Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Ram Baran Ram Nath [1976] 104 ITR 691. The Supreme Court's decision in Director of Inspection of Income-tax v. Pooran Mall Sons [1974] 96 ITR 390, was found distinguishable by the Tribunal. At the request of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsent of the parties and the ITO was directed to decide the matter afresh within two months after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to place his case before him. The order passed by the ITO in compliance with this direction was challenged as invalid on the ground that it was passed beyond the period mentioned in s. 132(5). The Supreme Court repelled this contention and observed that in decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iples laid down in it can have no application to the instant case. In the case of Ram Baran Ram Nath [1976] 104 ITR 691 (All), the order of penalty passed by the IAC was set aside by the Tribunal and the IAC was directed to pass a fresh order " as he thought expedient in accordance with law ". The IAC re-heard the matter and imposed a penalty. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal and urged that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
