1996 (4) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n question, said to be of law, arising out of the consolidated order dated May 29, 1992, of the Tribunal passed in I.T.A. Nos. 673 to 676/Ind. of 1990 and its refusal to make reference by the order dated February 16, 1993, passed in R. A. Nos. 158 to 161/Ind of 1992 relating to the assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The Assessing Officer levied penalties of Rs. 12,000, Rs. 1,00,000, Rs. 92,000 and Rs. 1,10,000 on the non-applicant/assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87, respectively. The appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,169 1986-87 49,270 The Assessing Officer, however, also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and imposed penalties which as already stated above were quashed in appeals by the Tribunal. As the order of the Tribunal passed in appeals was not acceptable to the Department, reference applications under section 256(1) were filed which too were rejected by the Tribunal. This gave rise to the present applications under section 256(2) of the Act. We have heard Shri D. D. Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant/Department and Shri J. W. Mahajan, learned counsel for the non-applicant/assessee in all these four cases. Shri Mahajan, learned counsel for the non-applicant/assessee has vehemently opposed the applications and contend....