Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) THE Revenue has filed these nine petitions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. THEse relate to the imposition of penalty against the respondent-assessee for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1987-88. THE Revenue maintains that the following question of law arises in I. T. C. Nos. 35 to 38 of 1998 and that the Tribunal should be directed to refer it to this court for its opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who cancelled the penalty imposed under Section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act by the Assessing Officer ?"
(2.) THE admitted facts are that the assessments in respect of different years had been completed under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961. THEreafter, the premises of the assessee were raided in July, 1987. THE assessments were reopened. Fresh orders of assessment were passed. Penalty proceedings were initiated. In respect of the four years in question, penalties amounting to Rs. 2,470, Rs. 3,962, Rs. 19,830 and Rs. 37,568 were imposed. Aggrieved by the orders of penalty the assessee filed appeals. THE Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the assessee had surrendered certain amounts, subsequent to the discussions with the officers and subject to no penalty. It was further found that "the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific items of concealment in the penalty order and has simply levied the penalty keeping in view the original income and reassessed income." Thus, the orders of penalty were annulled. Aggrieved by the orders of the appellate authority, the Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal. The appeals were dismissed. Then petitions under Section 256 of the Act were filed. These were also dismissed. Hence, the present petitions.
(3.) MR. Sawhney, learned counsel for the Revenue, contends that the Assessing Officer had found as a fact that the assessee had concealed the income. Thus, the levy of penalty was legal and valid.;