1986 (1) TMI 134

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal as time barred was not harsh in the fasts and circumstances prevailing in the first fortnight of June, 1984 in Amritsar and whether the time filing the appeal could have been extended by the period curfew remained imposed in the City?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the whole of the penalty of Rs. 64,545 levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act even on merits?" 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay filed by the ITO holding that of delay filed by the ITO holding that no sufficient cause was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of Rs. 27,120 was confirmed for the reasons in paras 3 and 4 of its order. However, the ITO as we have mentioned above, initiated penalty proceedings before the completion of assessment and, therefore, he issued a notice under s. 271(1)(c)/274 of the Act show to cause that why the assessee should not be penalised for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee offered the explanation, which was rejected by the ITO for the reasons mentioned his order and, therefore, imposed a penalty for a sum of Rs. 64,545 on the grounds mentioned in his order, inter alia that the quantum of penalty to be computed with reference to the law prevailing on the date, when the Act was committed i.e. the date on which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be explained and the finding of the Tribunal is that it is not explained, therefore, its findings do not give any occasion for raising any question of law as the issues coming out of such findings are academic. Reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of J. B. Advani & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. R. D. Shah, CIT (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC) and on the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Baij Nath (1984) 43 CTR (P&H) 214 : (1984) 148 ITR 135 (P&H). regarding question No. 3 the ld. counsel for the assessee contends that whether the delay is to be condoned or not, the answer to it is pure finding of fact, because the delay cannot be condoned, if sufficient cause and reason are not show. The answer is that, it ....