COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PURKHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TRIBUNAL, Jaipur Bench Jaipur (for short the TRIBUNAL) has referred the following two question for the opinions of this Court, which are said to arise out of its order dt. 12th Dec., 1978 in I.T.A. Nos. 1111 and 1112/JP/77/78 :

(2.) THEREFORE, the Tribunal addressed itself to the question posed by it in para 16 of the order. After referring to the judgment of this Court reported in CIT vs. Rawat Singh & Sons 1977 CTR (Raj) 248, it reached to the conclusion that of the purpose of imposing the penalties mere absence of reasonable cause is not enough, it should further be shown that there was a deliberate motive contumacious and dishonest or deliberate defiance of law, or conscious disregard of its statutory obligation, in committing default. The Tribunal therefore, deleted the penalties and allowed the appeals. In these circumstances, on an application being made, the aforesaid two question have been referred.

(3.) IT may be stated that CIT vs. Rawatsingh & Sons 1977 CTR (Raj) 248 was a case under s. 271 (1) of the Act. The Tribunal has followed it. The Division Bench of this Court in Tiwari Kanhaiyalal vs. CIT (1985) 47 CTR (Raj) 187 : (1985) 154 ITR 109(Raj) has observed as under :