1974 (12) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Income-tax Officer, D-Ward, Meerut, by his order dated May 1, 1964, imposed upon the assessee a penalty of Rs. 15,000 under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The order stated that the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for imposing the penalty had been obtained, but on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was established that the Income- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... her to enhance or reduce the penalty. This provision was interpreted as not conferring upon the Appellate Assistant Commissioner any jurisdiction to make the direction of the kind that he made in the appellate order. On this view, the last sentence mentioned above was cancelled, and to this extent the assessee's appeal was allowed. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nnot validly take such action. The direction in the appellate order that the Income-tax Officer should take such action according to law as he deems necessary in this case might have confused the situation. The Income-tax Officer was bound to take some action in accordance with the appellate direction. For this reason also the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the direction. Our answer to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X