1. Through this order, we propose to dispose of PTRs 4-2003, 400-2003, 426-2003, 20-2004, 21-2004, 22-2004, 328-2004 and 338-2004 wherein almost identical question (s) of law has been referred to this Court.
2. Through this Reference Application, it is contended that the following question of law arises requiring the expression of opinion by this Court: "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal was justified to reduce the penalty under section 108(b) against the mandatory quantum prescribed in the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?"
3. That the contention raised on behalf of the department is that section 108 of the ITO specifically quantifies the penalty to be imposed. The word "Shall" has been incorporated therein through an amendment thereby it is the intention of the legislature to denude the DC Income Tax and Department of any discretion in the 'matter of imposing the penalty other than the amount specified in the said provision of law. Hence, the penalty could not be reduced.
4. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law make it clear and obvious that both the Additional Appellate Commissioner as well as. The ITAT are vested with the jurisdiction and power to reduce the penalty: For the foregoing facts, circumstances and reasons, it becomes clear and obvious that the Appellate Commissioner and the ITAT have the jurisdiction to reduce the penalty, therefore, the question referred to in the captioned petition is answered in the affirmative. That similar question(s) raised in the connected PTRs embodied in paragraph 1 of the order also stand disposed of accordingly. .