High Court Of Rajasthan
CIT vs. Adu Ram
Sections 271(1)(a), 271(2)
Asst. Year 1978-79
J.S. Verma. C.J. & N.C. Kochhar, J.
D.B. IT Ref. No. 32 of 1987
14th September, 1988
Counsel Appeared
B.R. Arora, for the Revenue
BY THE COURT :
This is reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, (“the Act”), at the instance of the Revenue to answer the following question of law :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified legally in holding that no penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act. 1961, is leviable in the case of the assessee, a registered firm, because it had no tax liability in terms of the Explanation to s. 271(1) (a) and that the provisions of s. 271(2) did not govern the field in this case ?”
2. The relevant assessment year is 1978-79. The question as well as the facts on which this question arises is the same as in CIT vs. Builders Engineers Co. (1988) 72 CTR (Raj) 230 : (1989) 175 ITR 317 (Raj). Following that decision and for the same reasons, this reference has to be answered in the negative.
3. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by holding that the Tribunal was justified in taking the view that no penalty under s. 27(1)(a)(i)(b) of the Act is leviable against the assessee, a registered firm, because it had no tax liability within the meaning of the expression “assessed tax” given in the Expln. to sub-cl. (i)(b) of cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 271.
No costs.
[Citation : 175 ITR 324]
