- (1.) On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question set out at page 3 of the application for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that non-mention of penalty amount will vitiate the entire order ?" The assessee is an individual and is a proprietor of Meghani Motors, Calcutta. The assessment year under reference is 1979-80. The return was filed on June 27, 1975, declaring an income of Rs. 41,550. The search was carried out on August 19, 1981. The Department seized certain books of account and documents and on the basis of that seizure, addition to the tune of Rs. 29,851 was made. That addition was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the quantum appeal. On the basis of concealed income, the proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been initiated and the Income-tax Officer levied the penalty on hundred per cent of the tax evaded. But there was no quantification of penalty in the penalty order. In the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as the penalty was not quantified in the order, he deleted the penalty. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has also deleted penalty on that basis following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of N.N. Kotak v. CIT [19521 21 ITR 18.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. None appeared for the assessee, though the matter was listed 4/5 times.
(3.) The facts are not in dispute that the addition was sustained in the quantum appeal. The penalty has been deleted on the ground that in the order of penalty, the amount of penalty has not been quantified.;