TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (10) TMI 118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der section 155 of the Act, consequent to the order of the Commissioner, passed under section 264 of the Act, in the case of the firm, in which, the assessee, is a partner. The common claim of the revenue, in all the appeals, is that, the AAC could not have cancelled the penalty, on the basis, that, action under section 155 of the Act, do not permit such an action. The further claim of the revenue was that, the AAC had overlooked the fact, the penalties have been imposed consequent upon the setting aside of the orders for penalty by the Commissioner under section 264 of the Act. 2. The brief undisputed facts of the case are described hereunder. For the assessment years 1963-64 & 1964-65, the assessee ought to have filed the returns onJune ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Order against which revision petition has been Filed 1963-64 ITO's order u/s 271(1)(a) 1964-65 AAC's order dt.26-6-71, dismissing appeal against ITO's penalty order u/s 271(1)(a) dt.9-6-70, imposing penalty of Rs. 39,858 1965-66 ITO's penalty order u/s 140A, dt.12-8-69, imposing Rs.1,000. AAC's order confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(a) amounting to Rs. 29,005. AAC's order confirming the levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (b), amounting to Rs. 9,400 ITO's order u/s 271(1)(c) dt.28-11-73, levying penalty of Rs. 15,000 in pursuance of Tribunal's order. 5. The CIT,Lucknow, in his order dt.30-3-78, had followed his reasoning in the case of the firm M/s. Dharambir Manohar Lal, dt. 16-3-78, and observed--- " the concerned pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 7. The A.O. had also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the asst. year 1965-66. The A. O. in his order dt.27-3-82, in his first paragraph, had reproduced the fact of penalty having been imposed initially at Rs. 87,333. He then referred to the order of CIT dt.30-3-78as u/s 154/264 of the Act. He had imposed the penalties, consequent upon the amendment to the share from the firm, as per provisions of section 155 of the Act. He also indicates that the firms' asst. were so modified on10-3-79. He then states : " I therefore, now proceed to reframe the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in compliance to the directions issued by the CIT by his aforesaid order dt.30-3-78". In the second paragraph of the order, the A.O. brie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the firm. The assessee did not make an appearance at the time of the hearing of these appeals, though, the acknowledgment of the notice is on our record. We therefore, proceed to dispose of these appeals, after hearing the departmental representative Shri A.K Bharadwaj and after considering the materials that are available on our records. 10. The facts indicate that, the penalty that was imposed for belated returns and for concealment of income, has been set aside by the Commissioner by his order under section 264 of the Act. The Commissioner, while setting aside the penalty orders, had directed the Assessing Officer to give consequent effect to his order in the case of the firm, in the hands of the partners and for refraining of the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of the orders, in certain circumstances and prescribes certain other circumstances, when revision is not possible. One such circumstance, which prohibits the Commissioner from revising the order, is the order, which had become the subject of appeal before the Tribunal. The issue of penalty for concealment of income, as such, was the subject of appeal to the Tribunal. The A. O. had merely given consequential effect to the order of the Tribunal. The penalty of Rs. 15,000 having been confirmed by the Tribunal, which has been given effect, and thus, the initial order as made by the A.O., no longer retains its original independent identity, but, got merged with those of the Tribunal. Though, it was the assessee, who had moved the revision p....