9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material on record to sustain the findings of the Income-tax Appe-llate Tribunal in deleting the penalties under section 271(1)(c) in respect of the assessment years 1978-79 and 1981-82 to 1986-87 and also penalties under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(2)(b) for the assessment year 1986-87 ? 2. Briefly sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erson. The assessee admitted the undisclosed investment in fixed deposit receipts (FDR) of ₹ 24, 500 and it was submitted by her that although she is in a position to offer explanation regarding the sources of acquisition of FDRs but to avoid long drawn out process of litigation, she offered the inclusion of FDRs and the interest thereon for the assessment purposes in her hand. An applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO. 5. Heard Shri Shambhu Chopra, the learned standing counsel for the Department. None appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee. 6. In the present reference we find that the return of income of the assessee has been accepted by the Department. Search warrant was issued against the husband of the assessee. The return for the asst. yr. 1986-87 was not due on the date of search. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, Expln. 3 to s. 271(1)(c) would not operate. 7. The learned standing counsel could not show from the assessment order or otherwise that the above finding of the Tribunal is vitiated. 8. In the result we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was right in setting aside the penalty order. 9. In view of the above discussion we answer the question referred to us in affirma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
