9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the assessee had consciously or deliberately disregarded the statutory obligation placed upon it tinder section 139(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961, it having submitted the return voluntarily before issue of notice under section 139(2) ? (ii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the Revenue had discharged the onus placed upon it under section 271(1)(a) is legally correct ? (iii) Whether, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e return ? (v) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to place any additional causes for delay in submitting the return which it had not placed before the lower authorities ? (vi) Whether the provisions of section 271(1)(a) were legally and correctly applied to the case of the appellant ? (vii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in rejectin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation was dismissed. The petitioner filed two petitions in this court being Income-tax Cases Nos. 24 and 25 of 1989 (Gangeshwar Ltd (No. 1) v. CIT [1991] 192 ITR 180, challenging the levy of penalty under section 273 and also challenging the order under section 254(2). The questions of law proposed therein were similar to questions Nos. 3 and 4 in the present application. Income-tax Cases Nos. 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the Tribunal had arrived at, namely, that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) was justified. This conclusion is, in our opinion, a question of fact and, therefore, no question of law arises. We may, at this stage, mention that, in the present case, notice was directed to be issued only in respect of questions Nos. 3 to 6. For the aforesaid reasons, questions Nos. 3 and 4 are questions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
