1984 (2) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt year 1974-75. 2. The circumstances in which the penalty came to be imposed may be noted. The assessee owned a building, which was sold by him for Rs. 20,000 on 5th September, 1973. The factum of the sale of property was declared by the assessee in his return and it was also mentioned by him therein that the capital gain, as may be exigible, may be assessed in his hands. The ITO considered the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he AAC who deleted the penalty. The departmental has now appealed before the Tribunal against the aforesaid order of the learned AAC. 4. I have heard the learned Departmental representatives as well as the assessee. According to me, the order of the learned AAC is entirely in order. Sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not have been invoked to the facts of the present .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X