1974 (12) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ay 1, 1964, imposed upon the assessee a penalty of Rs. 15,000 under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The order stated that the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for imposing the penalty had been obtained, but on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was established that the Income-tax Officer sent his letter to the Inspecting Assistant C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... interpreted as not conferring upon the Appellate Assistant Commissioner any jurisdiction to make the direction of the kind that he made in the appellate order. On this view, the last sentence mentioned above was cancelled, and to this extent the assessee's appeal was allowed. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opini .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellate order that the Income-tax Officer should take such action according to law as he deems necessary in this case might have confused the situation. The Income-tax Officer was bound to take some action in accordance with the appellate direction. For this reason also the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the direction. Our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X