9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The Income tax officer ("ITO" for short) in the course of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee concealed his income in the name R.C. Malpani (p) Ltd which was held to be a benami concern of the assessee. The penalty proceedings were refereed to the IAC by the ITO who made the assessment. The IAC took up the penalty proceedings and imposed a penalty of Rs.. 67,000, against which the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Co. of India Ltd. vs. ITO (1978) 112 ITR 592 (Cal) and CIT vs. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC) etc, were placed. 4. It was also submitted that on similar grounds and on similar reasons the penalty proceedings for the asst. yr. 1966-67 and other years were dropped by the IAC himself. The IAC after considering the submissions made rejected the claim of the assessee regarding limitations as in h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore the case did not fall within the ambit of s. 271(1)(c) This plea was not accepted by the IAC who noted from the facts stated earlier that the assesses has no ITO included the income from the contract work done in the name of R.C. Malpani. Having rejected the submissions made on behalf of the assessee the IAC imposed a penalty of Rs. 21,000 Hence this appeal before us. 5. On behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) for other years as placed in the paper book filled on behalf of the assessee. That apart the IAC has not brought fresh facts and materials collected in course of the assessment proceedings are a good evidence but are not conclusive for the purpose. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the penalty has been imposed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
