9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (2) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by VEERASWAMI J.-This reference involves a penalty proceeding and relates to the assessment year 1952-53. Four sums were added to the income returned by the assessee in his individual capacity, after rejecting his explanation. It appears that in an appeal arising out of the assessment, the Tribunal corrected the status of the assessee as Hind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvince us that the case would not fall within the scope of section 28(1)(c). It is true that where two views are possible on all explanation in respect of cash credit entries in the books and one of which commends itself to the revenue, penalty may perhaps not be justified. But this is not one such case, because there can be no explanation whatever at least in respect of one of the fixed deposits. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in that form. In view of this, it is strongly pressed on us for the revenue that it is not open to the assessee to raise it in this reference. The limits of our jurisdiction have been clearly laid down in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. which are summed up thus : "1. When a question is raised before the Tribunal and is dealt with by it, it is clearly one arising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not or could not have had the opportunity to deal with the other aspects or facts and that in such a case where the question itself is under issue, there is no further limitation imposed by section 66 that the reference should be limited to those aspects of the question which had been argued before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court observed that to do so will be an over-refinement of the position to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. The frame of the question before us also is wide enough to cover the aspect of the question not argued before the Tribunal. It is hardly necessary to point out that the appellant before the Tribunal not being the assessee, it necessarily follows that the levy of penalty on him would be illegal. The question is answered in favour of the assessee with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250. - - Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
