COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS Vs. NEMICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed both by the assessees and the revenue questioning the correctness of the impugned common judgment dated 31 -12 -1998, passed in I.T.A. Nos. 64 to 67/Bang/1997, 69 to 72/Bang/1997, 74 to 77/Bang/1997 and 79 to 82/Bang/1997 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called as "the Tribunal" in short). These appeals are filed by each one of the assessees for different assessment years 1989 -1990 to 1993 -94.

(2.) THE revenue has also challenged the impugned judgment in the other connected appeals, it is aggrieved by the setting aside of the levy of penalty imposed by the assessing authority upon the assessees and affirmed by the first appellate authority and urged various legal contentions in support of the substantial questions framed in their appeals.

(3.) AFTER hearing these matters at length, we have gone through the records produced by the parties and the provisions of Sections 132, 140, 147, 148 particularly Sub -section (2) of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal, keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19 and the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Allana Cold Storage Ltd. v. ITO reported in (2006) 287 ITR 1 which is followed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. B.L. Meena, Income Tax Officer and Others, (2006) 287 ITR 337 Delhi whereunder the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court after referring to the Apex Court decision in the case of GKN Drive -shafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19, the Delhi High Court, referred the matter to the assessing officer to proceed further from the stage of reviving objection statement from the assessee and pass a speaking order in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra.