JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE Revenue has filed this appeal under S. 260A of the IT Act, 1961. It maintains that the following question of law arises for consideration of this Court : "Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee could not anticipate the assessed income even in case of an agreed assessment where the income assessed had been agreed to be his true income even during the assessment proceedings and there was no appeal against the same ?" In pursuance to the notice of motion issued by the Bench of this Court the learned counsel for the respondent is present.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel. Admittedly, three orders of penalty were passed under ss. 271 (1)(a), 271B and 273(2)(aa) of the IT Act 1961. In proceedings under S. 273(2)(aa) of the IT Act, 1961, a penalty of Rs. 3,316 was imposed. The Tribunal vide its order dt. 12th Nov., 1998, found that the records had been seized by the officers of the Department. The copies had not been furnished. Therefore, the assessee was not to blame and the order of penalty could not be sustained. Aggrieved by the order, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.
(3.) THE amount involved is too meagre. Even on facts the Department has no justification for filing this appeal. It not only adds to the work but also results in the avoidable expenditure to the Revenue. The appeal is wholly frivolous. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are wrong or unfair. No substantial question of law arises. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. The costs are fixed at Rs. 5,000.;