2002 (8) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been filed seeking opinion of this court on the following questions: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) even after giving clear finding that the assessee made a punishable default under section 271(1)(c)? 2. Whether, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rn, no penalty could be levied. It is contended by Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, learned counsel for the Revenue, that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. It is submitted that even in the case of admission by the assessee, the question of cancellation of penalty is a question of law. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this court in Rasoolji Buxji v. CIT [....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to avoid litigation on an understanding and assurance that no penalty would be levied, though the entire amount did not relate to the assessment year in question is a finding of fact. Learned counsel has also relied on a judgment of this court in CIT v. H.M. Lalwani [2002] 258 ITR 276 to which one of us was a party (Mr. N. N. Mathur J.), wherein it is held that penalty under section 140A(3) give....