9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (4) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, levy of Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 12,500 by way of penalty by the Tribunal amounted to an enhancement of the penalty levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner?" The assessee, an individual, was assessed for the assessment year 1961-62 on a total income of Rs. 9,491 under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act 1922. Subsequently, proceedings, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in an order by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,000. Against the penalty orders, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal reduced the penalties for the aforesaid two assessment years to Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 12,500. Thereafter, the assessee applied for rectification of the appellate order of the Tribunal, contending, inter alia, that the effect of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,500 for the two assessment years is to enhance the penalties levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Viewed as a consequence of the appellate order, it cannot be disputed that the question would arise out of that order. The assessee, believing the appellate order to have that effect, applied for the rectification of that order and the rectification was denied. Alternatively, he had reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. We have perused the appellate order and we do not see any reason to hold that the Tribunal intended to apply the same ratio between the penalty levied and the maximum penalty leviable. The law did not bind the Tribunal to adopt the same ratio as the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner did. The Tribunal had before it several circumstances on the basis of whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
