TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (3) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arge for which the penalty in question was levied prior to the actual passing of the order by the Tribunal, the Tribunal was justified in refusing proper opportunity to the assessee to produce the said judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge in support of its stand that there is no justification for levy of penalty and in refusing to reopen and rehear the appeal ? 2. If question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,39,261 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of Khandasari sugar. For the assessment year 1970-7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Before the Tribunal, the departmental representative, inter alia, placed reliance upon the judgment of the trial court convicting the partners while supporting the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal heard the arguments 'and reserved the matter for judgment. Within three days thereafter, the Metropolitan Additional Sessions judge pronounced his judgment and order acquitting the partners. On the same day, it appears, the assessee filed an application before the. Tribunal informing it of the said fact and requesting it to give some time to enable the assessee to produce a copy of the said judgment before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, passed no orders nor did it grant any time for producing the judgment. It pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Metropolitan Additional Sessions Judge. The assessee, therefore, requested that the judgment of the Tribunal may be set aside and the matter be reheard taking into consideration the judgment of the Metropolitan Additional Sessions Judge. This petition was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on June 24, 1980. The Tribunal was of the opinion that there are no grounds for review. It stated further that it had come to the conclusion that it is a fit case for levy of penalty on an exhaustive consideration of the facts of the case and that it had given three or four reasons for sustaining the levy of penalty and that it did not place any reliance upon the judgment of the Magistrate convicting the partners. It said that the fact of conviction of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the argument of learned counsel. The penalty was levied by the Income-tax Officer on the facts and circumstances before him de hors any judgment or opinion of the Magistrate or any other court. Similarly, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the penalty on the facts and circumstances before him without any reference to the orders of the court because, as stated above, the orders of the criminal court (that is, either of the Magistrate or of the Appellate Court) were not even pronounced by the date of the judgment of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Now, coming to the Tribunal's order the Tribunal also confirmed the levy of penalty on the facts and circumstances of the case, unrelated to and without reference to the judgme....