2000 (3) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Tribunal has referred the following question set out at page 3 of the application for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that non-mention of penalty amount will vitiate the entire order ?" The assessee is an individual and is a proprietor of Meghani Motors, Calcutta. The assessment year under reference is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....so deleted penalty on that basis following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of N. N. Kotak v. CIT [1952] 21 ITR 18. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. None appeared for the assessee, though the matter was listed 4/5 times. The facts are not in dispute that the addition was sustained in the quantum appeal. The penalty has been deleted on the ground that in, the order of p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o so, by itself, would not invalidate the said order, as long as it is computable by a mere reference to the relevant provisions of the Act. Under section 271(1)(i) of the Act, a sum equal to two per cent. of the tax for every month during which the default continued, but not exceeding in the aggregate 50 per cent. of the tax, is leviable as penalty for a default under section 271(1)(a). The admit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. of the tax sought to be evaded as penalty under section 271(1)(c) which comes to Rs..." The computation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is given in sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of the Act which provides that "in cases referred to in clause (c), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax sought to b....