TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (8) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee at the stage of arguments ' that the inordinate delay in passing the order under section 28(1)(c) be held a good ground for not levying the penalty' ? " The facts in a nutshell which are necessary for answering this question are that the order for the assessment year 1956-57 was made on March 18, 1961, and the order imposing penalty was passed on July 31, 1974, under section 28(1)(c) of the 1922 Act. The order imposing penalty under section 28(1)(c) was maintained in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and also by the Tribunal in second appeal. Before the Tribunal, during the course of arguments, a prayer was made for permitting a question to be raised as to whether it was expedient to impose penalty after about 13 years....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posing penalty was passed in breach of any statutory provision prescribing limitation for passing an order of penalty. The case which the assessee wanted to set up before the Tribunal for the first time during the course of arguments in second appeal was that it was not expedient to pass an order of penalty after the expiry of about 13 years. In M.C.C. No. 14 of 1983 dated 12-8-1987 (ClT v. Dr. Manoranjan Mohanty [1988] 171 ITR 95), it was held by us while giving our opinion on almost a similar question that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that the penalty order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on January 3, 1979, was bad in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imposed was excessive. Learned counsel for the assessee also conceded before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the penalty had been rightly imposed by the Income-tax Officer under section 28(1)(c) of the 1922 Act. It is, therefore, a case where a pure question of law was not sought to be raised by the assessee before the Tribunal. It was also not a case where even though the question of fact was sought to be raised, all the relevant material to decide that question was already on record. On the other hand, it was a case where relevant facts, in order to find out as to whether it was expedient to impose penalty in spite of inordinate delay, were yet to be brought on record. For that purpose, the parties were to be given an opportuni....