2001 (8) TMI 95

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the following questions for the opinion of this court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the penalty of Rs.46,135, Rs.52,2 10 and Rs.58,065 for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, respectively, levied under section 271(1)(c)? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did not the Income-tax Officer have jurisdiction to initiate the penalty proceedings under section 271(1) again, after he had decided the case afresh?" The factual position is almost undisputed and is as follows: For the three assessment years involved, i.e., 1967-68, 1968-69 and 196970, the assessee had filed its returns of income. For the assessment vea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ain addition which was the basis for levy of penalty was on account of disallowance of interest on loans which had been surrendered earlier by the assessee and those which were surrendered before the Income-tax Officer, when he was giving effect to the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The interest on account of the amounts surrendered earlier came to Rs.45,463, Rs.50,420 and Rs.56,415, respectively, for the three assessment years. There were other amounts for the three assessment years in question which amounted to Rs.13,312, Rs.39,412 and Rs.50,294, respectively. While giving effect to the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Income-tax Officer found that the figures would be Rs.672, Rs.1,790 and R....