9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiated as it has failed to consider the concealment admitted by the assessee himself in the revised return? 3. Whether, Tribunal is legally correct in cancelling the penalty for concealment?" - Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has come to the conclusion that Rs. 37,000 was sufficient to meet the turnover of business during the year in question and thus there was neither any fraud or wilful con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot correct on fact? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is vitiated as it has failed to consider the concealment admitted by the assessee himself in the revised return? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in cancelling the penalty for concealment?" The reference relates to the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in the business was taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 38,000. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed penalty of Rs. 42,500. The penalty was imposed on the ground of unexplained investment of Rs. 38,000 and investment in the money-lending business of Rs. 4,500. The penalty was also confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In further a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lful concealment on the part of the respondent-assessee. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on appreciation of evidence and material on record and do not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is well settled that the findings recorded on the quantum side, in the assessment order is only a piece of evidence, can be relied upon in the penalty proceedings and the Tribunal is well within it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
