- (1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, has referred the following two questions at the instance of the Revenue : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ceased to have any jurisdiction for imposing penalty under Section 271 (l) (c) after April 1, 1976 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty of Rs. 78,216 imposed under Section 271 (l) (c) ?"
(2.) THE Tribunal has also referred the following two questions at the instance of the assessee : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty order was not invalid on the ground that the show-cause notice for imposition of penalty had-been served on one ex partner and not on all the three partners separately ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty was leviable in respect of the addition of Rs. 17,838 which had been determined on estimated basis on suppressed sales?"
(3.) WE shall first deal with the question referred at the instance of the Revenue and the second question referred at its instance is consequential to the answer to question No. 1. One composite question could have been framed. The Income-tax Officer, by assessment order dated September 9, 1975, made additions of income on various counts and in the same order observed as under : "proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271 (l) (c) of the Act have already been initiated for concealing the true particulars of his income. Penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271 (l) (a) have also already been started. Charge interest under Section 139. ";