9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (3) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, concluded as follows: "It is evident therefore that the assessee was guilty of suppression of income. Thus, considering all aspects of the case, a penalty of ₹ 750 is imposed after obtaining the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's previous sanction. This will be got adjusted from the refund of ₹ 6,417-10-0 in respect of 1952-53 assessment" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mull. Records show a hearing or an opportunity of being heard had not been given to the appellant before the passing of the penalty order. The order has been passed merely after considering the written explanation offered by the appellant in regard to the alleged concealment. In the circumstances, I hold that the penalty order is illegal. The penalty levied is accordingly cancelled. It should be r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the building at ₹ 34,000 and as ₹ 28,200 had already been debited as expenditure for the same, theaddition need be limited to the difference, viz., Rs . 5,791, and as ₹ 5,000 has already been added back there is no need for a further addition of ₹ 15,000. In any event there is concealment at least to the tune of ₹ 5,000. The assessee was requested to appear in person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam. The penalty should be paid on or before 25th December, 1956". 4. The question that arises for decision is whether Exhibit F can be sustained in view of Exhibit C. Section 31(3)(f) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, provides that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order under section 28, "confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
