9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessment year 1985-86. Both these appeals were heard on the same date and argued by common representatives, therefore, these are decided by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The facts in brief pertaining to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) in the case of Bipra Investments and Trusts Pvt. Ltd. are that search was conducted at the premises of M/s. Elecon Engineering Co., and its Managing Director, Shri Bhanubhai I. Patel by the Customs Authorities in January, 1985. The Income-tax Authorities were also associated with the search. The assessee-company also belongs to the same group of cases. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order made addition of Rs. 1,19,976 being the investment on unexplained jeweller ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 271(1)(c) was upheld by the first appellate authority as well as ITAT dis-believing the explanation of the assessee which was bona fide. 5. The counsel of the assessee also filed two separate paper books. The paper book filed in the case of Bipra Investments and Trusts Pvt. Ltd. contains statement of case and questions of law referred by ITAT to Hon'ble Gujarat High Court under section 256(1) for its esteemed opinion. The counsel of the assessee submitted that reference has been allowed and following question of law was referred : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the explanation offered by Directors and relatives of the assessee company about the nature and source of acquisition of gold orname ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .G. Nariman v. ITO, counsel of the assessee submitted that on perusal of application under section 256(1) and question referred for opinion of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Bipra Investments and Trusts Pvt. Ltd. and statement of the case drawn by this Tribunal in the case of B.I. Investment Pvt. Ltd., as per direction under section 256(2), question referred for opinion of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it can be seen that question of taxing the income in the case of both the assessee company was wide open and therefore, assessee's case could not be brought within mischief of clause (B) of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) because there is no concealment within the meaning of section 271(1)(c). He accordingly contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the assessees. (b)The Hon'ble Tribunal rejected the plea of the assessee regarding denial about the ownership of the jewellery on the ground that business of both the assessees is to buy and sell, invest in, acquire, hold otherwise deal in precious metal, gems, diamonds, pearls, jewellery etc. The jewellery belong to other persons has not accepted by the Tribunal for the reasons given by lower authorities in quantum appeal. The ld. DR concluded that order of ld. CIT(A) upholding the penalty in both the cases is legally and factually correct. Therefore, same be upheld. 10. Having heard both the sides, we have carefully gone through the orders of authorities below as well as decision of ITAT, Bombay Bench in the case of K.G. Nariman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
