LAWS(PAT)-1984-5-17

JAMUNADAS MANNALAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Decided On May 21, 1984
JAMUNADAS MANNALAL Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the assessee, M/s Jamunadas Mannalal, a registered firm, at Jhumritelaiya in the district of Hazaribagh, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Patna, has referred to this court the following questions of law for opinion :

(2.) ASSESSMENT years involved are 1965-66 and 1966-67. There being separate penalty orders for the two years and separate appeals by the assessee before the AAC, Ranchi Range, Ranchi, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Patna, and two references, although by a common order, have been made by the Tribunal, in this court also the references in question have been registered as two taxation cases, one for the assessment year 1965-66 and the other for the assessment year 1966-67. A Bench of this court consisting of S.K. Jha and A.K. Sinha JJ. heard the matter and on March 31, 1983, noticed that on the question as to what should be the period for which there can be said to be a default for levying penalty in terms of Section 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the two Hon'ble Judges of this court, namely, S.P. Sinha J. (as he then was) and S. Sarwar Ali J. were in disagreement in the case of Addl. CIT v. Dongarsidas Biharilal [1979] 116 ITR 897. They, accordingly, thought it desirable that the matter should be heard by a Full Bench for an authoritative exposition of law.

(3.) THE Supreme Court noticed that one view was that the words "any question of law arising out of" the order of the Tribunal signify that the question must have been raised before the Tribunal and considered by it, and the other view was that all questions of law arising out of the facts found would be questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. THE Supreme Court summed up as follows (p. 611):