1987 (7) TMI 33

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal (for short, " the ITAT ") dated December 18, 1979, which was served on the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-1, on January 16, 1980. But, by then, the jurisdiction over the assessee's case had been transferred to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, who received the Tribunal's order on March 13, 1980. After the appeals against the assessment were disposed of, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner continued the penalty proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer and on September 29, 1980, passed an order levying a penalty of Rs. 1, 12,065. The penalty was imposed for the reason that the assessee had, in filing its return of income, omitted to take into account any value for the closing stock of scrap lying with it at the en....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... no jurisdiction to levy the penalty ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty order on the question of period of limitation by holding that limitation should be counted from the date of service of the Tribunal's order on CIT-I, New Delhi, and not on CIT (Central), New Delhi, with whom the jurisdiction over the case actually vested ? " In ITC No. 100 of 1984 which pertains to the order dated October 23, 1982, under section 254(2), the question raised is as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct, both on facts and in law, in recalling paras. 10,11 and 12 of their order dated Septemb....