1981 (1) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ow-cause notice under s. 274(1) of the Act and there was no response from the assessee to the said show-cause notice, the ITO issued another show-cause notice under s. 274(1) to the assessee stating therein that the case was being referred to the IAC and he sent a copy of that notice to the IAC. The IAC further issued a show cause-notice to the assessee under s. 274(1) and he imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000. It is common ground that the reference made to the IAC was made on the footing that the minimum penalty imposable was Rs. 12,096 which was 20 per cent. of the amount of the tax sought to be evaded and that was also the basis on which the IAC proceeded to impose the penalty. The IAC holding that the assessee had concealed particulars of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the following question was referred at the instance of the assessee: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner dated March 23, 1972, was barred by the period of limitation ? " Now, so far as question No. 1 referred at the instance of the Revenue is concerned, it is clear that that question is concluded by the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. This statement of the case in para. No. 1 clearly recites as follows: "On March 7, 1972, the Income-tax Officer issued another show-cause notice under section 274(1) to the assessee stating therein that the case was being referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and he sent copy of the notice to the Inspecting ....