- (1.) This batch of appeals are taken up for hearing altogether, as the facts and points of law involved are common. The appeals were admitted on the substantial questions of law before this court and the same were not spelt out in the orders dated July 24, 2000, July 24, 2000, October 23, 2000, and October 20, 2000. At the time of hearing, we thought it fit that the appeals should be heard only on two points, which are as follows: "(1) Whether the Tribunal was not justified in law in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act even though there is no nexus between the assessment proceedings of the firm and the obligation of the assessees to file individual returns? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in presuming that an order of waiver passed in terms of section 273A of the Income-tax Act should be regarded as a good reason for cancelling the penalties levied under section 271(1)(a) and section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act?"
(2.) The assessees filed returns in their individual capacity pursuant to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Assessing Officer, after assessing the returns, found that there has been a delay in filing the returns. As such, penalty was imposed along with other persons. These orders of imposing penalty were taken to appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, however, sustained the orders of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty but in some of the cases the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) waived the penalty. Therefore, the respondent-assessees approached the Tribunal against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of imposition of penalty. The Tribunal, on fact, found that the pre-conditions for imposing penalty were not subsisting and, hence, the amount of penalty was deleted.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant, though admitted that there was a delay in filing the returns, contended that the imposition of penalty by the Assessing Officer was justified and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also affirmed it, and, therefore there is no justification for the Tribunal to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).;