ORDER
1. Heard finally.
2. The grievance raised in this petition is very limited. Penalty proceedings under Section 271C of the IT Act, 1961, were initiated and finalised by Dy. CIT, Range 23, New Delhi, against the petitioner resulting into a penalty of Rs. 6,99,82,708 being imposed on the petitioner by order dt. 31st July, 1997. The penalty order is subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal.
3. The petitioner sought for inspection of the records so as to defend himself. The inspection is not being allowed to the petitioner as the same is being resisted by the Department. This petition has been filed during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal by (the petitioner/assesee submitting that even before the Tribunal, the petitioner would not be in a position to defend itself and argue the appeal effectively unless the inspection is allowed.
4. Today, it is stated at the bar that the hearing before the Tribunal is concluded, but the petitioner has made a request to the Tribunal to await the decision of this Court in this petition before deciding the appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents which are to be inspected by the petitioner can be classified into four categories namely (i) the order-sheets, (ii) the notices issued by the Department to the petitioner and the petitioner’s replies thereto, (iii) the statement of Mr. H. Matsuzawa, the general manager of the company recorded by the Asstt. CIT; and (iv) certain letters written by the CBDT to Dy. CIT touching the impugned penalty.
6. So far as the statement of Mr. H. Matsuzawa is concerned, the learned senior standing counsel for the Department has stated that the copy thereof shall be made available to the petitioner within three days.
7. As to the order-sheets and the notices issued by the Department to the petitioner and replies given by the petitioner, we do not see any possible objection excluding the petitioner’s right to inspect the same or for copies thereof. It is, therefore, directed that the respondents shall within three days afford the petitioner an opportunity for inspecting the order-sheets, the notices issued by the Department to the petitioner and the replies given by the petitioner to the Department.
8. As to the correspondence between the CBDT and the Dy. CIT touching the penalty, we cannot express any opinion unless we have seen the papers. As the matter is already before the Tribunal, we deem it proper to leave this issue to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, if it be so inclined, call for such correspondence which shall be made available to the Tribunal by the Department and the Tribunal may after inspecting the same for itself form an opinion whether it is relevant to the defense of the petitioner/assesee and whether there can be any objection to the same being made available for the inspection by the assessee.
9. The petition stands disposed of in terms of the above said directions. The Tribunal may decide the appeal after the above said directions have been complied with.
10. No order as to costs.