1980 (7) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he following questions of law to this court for its opinion: " (i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the IAC had jurisdiction to levy penalty for the A.Y. 1970-71 after the amendment of section 18(3) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 ? (ii) If the answer to question No. (i) is in the affirmative, whether the penalty up .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xceeded a sum of Rs. 25,000 in each case. The IAC, after considering the material on record, imposed penalties amounting to Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 60,000, respectively, for the two years in question. Against that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the IAC had no jurisdiction to levy the penalties in question by his order dated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... first question referred to this court would depend on that date. As there is no reference to that date in the statement of the case, this is a fit case, in our opinion, where the Tribunal should be directed to furnish a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal is accordingly directed to send a supplementary statement of the case and to state therein the date on which the matter regardin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X