9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (6) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the Tribunal dt. 27th Jan., 1979 and made in ITA. No. 150 (Gau) of 1978-79 to the Hon'ble High Court at Gauhati for adjudication: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order under s. 271(1)(c) passed by the ITO. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the finding of the Tribunal that there were no materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y decline to draw up a statement of the case for the reasons given below. 4. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business of grocery. For the asst. yr. 1972-73 corresponding to the pervious year ended 31st March, 1972, the ITO found that certain transactions of the assessee with M/s. Routhmal Bhairudan and M/s. Sardarmal Shivdayal, discovered in the book of those firms had not been rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 20,000 for the concealment of the two amounts of Rs. 10,229 and Rs. 8,350. The AAC found that the explanation of the assessee had not been discussed and the penalty was imposed merely on the basis of the assessment order. He came to the conclusion that concealment was not proved, and he, therefore, cancelled the penalty imposed. On further appeal, the Tribunal found that the cancellation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of penalty. 5. From the above narration, it is clear that no proposition of law came up for consideration before the Tribunal and the case was decided entirely on finding of facts. The questions raised by the Revenue challenge only those findings of fact. The facts of the case, annexed to the reference application, do not mention any irrelevant material taken into consideration or any relevant m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
