9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -83 after rejection of the application, presented under section 256(1) of the Act and registered as R. A. No. 67/Ind. of 1994 on October 5, 1994, for our opinion : " (i) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law to hold that the Income-tax Officer was right in imposing penalty when he has not sought instructions from the Commissioner about the revised return filed under the scheme admitting the addition and whether in such circumstances, the order imposing penalty by the Income-tax Officer is in accordance with law ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal confirming the minimum penalty on addition of Rs. 74,044 even when the return was under the scheme and is protected by Circular N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unaccounted payment. The assessee felt dissatisfied by these additions and, therefore, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), in regard to the above two additions. Later, the assessee withdrew the appeal and filed a revised return offering a sum of Rs. 74,044 as income from undisclosed sources. It was claimed that the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme be given to the assessee since the revised return was filed on March 31, 1986, and no penalty be levied. The Assessing Officer, however, negatived the contention and levied the minimum penalty of Rs. 56,000 on account of the above three additions. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that the assessee had written a letter to the Commissioner of Income-tax sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivastava, for the non-applicant/Department. Right at the threshold counsel for the applicant submitted that question No. (iii), as noted above, is not being pressed in this application as according to him the entire controversy is fully covered by questions Nos. (i) and (ii), as noted above. The question to be considered is whether it was obligatory to obtain instructions from the Commissioner in regard to the revised return under the amnesty scheme ? Further question is whether minimum penalty was liable to be foisted and additions of Rs. 74,044 in the face of the revised return having been filed under the protective umbrella of Circular No. 451, dated February 17, 1986, were to be made ? In our view, a prima facie case is made out for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
