9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1972-73. Mr. Rajendra appearing for the Revenue submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated November 13, 1995, and, therefore, the said order requires to be reviewed by recalling the order. Drawing our attention to the findings recorded by the Tribunal in its order in the quantum appeal in respect of the assessment year 1967-68 to the effect that the user of the machinery by another person was not disclosed by the assessee and, therefore, the assessee was responsible for the underassessment of its income-tax for the assessment year 1967-68 which occurred by reason of the omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e related to the assessment year 1972-73. Now coming to the prayer of review made by the Revenue in respect of the assessment year 1967-68, in our judgment on November 13, 1995, we on examination of record, and in the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the penalty proceedings relevant to the assessment year 1967-68 that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove that the difference was not owing to fraud or gross or wilful neglect, came to the conclusion that the said findings recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact and that no question of law could be said to have arisen therefrom. On a scrutiny of the record, we find that in fact the Tribunal has recorded such a concluded finding of fact both for the assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation of the assessee is in any way false. It is also to be noted that in the penalty proceedings the Tribunal has not found that the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any error apparent on the face of the record as was sought to be made out by learned counsel for the Revenue. It is also to be noted that for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1970-71, the assessments of the assessee were reopened, still this court declined to call for a reference in the penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee.
In the result, this review application has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed, but without any costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
