TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (9) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (briefly " the Act "), for the opinion of this court. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the penalty order instead of setting it aside for a fresh hearing and disposal by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ? " The material facts lie in a br....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e penalty order had already expired and the IAC was debarred from passing a fresh order of penalty. For this the Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Ram Baran Ram Nath [1976] 104 ITR 691. The Supreme Court's decision in Director of Inspection of Income-tax v. Pooran Mall & Sons [1974] 96 ITR 390, was found distinguishable by the Tribunal. At the request of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TO was set aside by the Delhi High Court with the consent of the parties and the ITO was directed to decide the matter afresh within two months after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to place his case before him. The order passed by the ITO in compliance with this direction was challenged as invalid on the ground that it was passed beyond the period mentioned in s. 132(5). The Supreme Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preme Court is clearly distinguishable and the principles laid down in it can have no application to the instant case. In the case of Ram Baran Ram Nath [1976] 104 ITR 691 (All), the order of penalty passed by the IAC was set aside by the Tribunal and the IAC was directed to pass a fresh order " as he thought expedient in accordance with law ". The IAC re-heard the matter and imposed a penalty. T....