TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (9) TMI 13
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leting the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that on completion of assessment in the status of a registered firm the assessee was entitled to a refund and hence no penalty was leviable, is correct in law? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in distinguishing the judgment in the case of CIT v. R. Ochhavlal and Co. [1976] 105 ITR 518 (Guj), wherein it was clearly held that when a registered firm commits a default, the provisions of section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would come into play? (iv) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, justified deletion of the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer under secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal further held that there was divergence of judicial opinion in regard to imposition of penalty of a registered firm when there was refund due to an assessee in the status on a registered firm. In view of this position, the Tribunal relied upon the decision of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192, wherein it was laid down by the apex court that levy of penalty was not justified particularly when two views were possible with regard to the provisions relating to imposition of penalty. The Tribunal, thus, upheld the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue has preferred the aforesaid reference against the order of the Tribunal. We have heard Mr. B.B. Naik, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 and held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had rightly deleted the penalty. Mr. Naik vehemently contended that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the Income-tax Officer had completed penalty proceedings without waiting for the assessee's reply is incorrect as can be seen from the penalty order for the assessment year 1977-78. He, therefore, urged that as the Tribunal's finding was against the record we should not accept the same and it was open to interfere even in relation to such factual finding. We have gone through the penalty order for the assessment year 1977-78 and find that the Assessing Officer had referred to the assessee's letter dated January 24, ....