9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove concealed income on the basis of revised returns furnished by the assessee ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be levied in reference to the admitted concealed income in the revised return even though the concealed income was detected during search and settled with the Department after original return of income had been filed ? (3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in inferring that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealed income is not to be considered with reference to original return of income though filed after its detection by the Assessing Officer ?" After hearing learned counsel on both sides, we have reached the conclusion that no referable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year 1977-78 by adding a sum of Rs. 1,37,494 to its income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings for the year 1979-80 by adding a sum of Rs. 2,33,708 to the income. The Income-tax Officer thus acted upon the abovereferred offer. However, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee as contemplated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Apart from the said letter dated March 5, 1986, there was no other material whatsoever before the authorities on the basis of which it could be held that the assessee had concealed its income during the relevant years. However, the Income-tax Officer levied penalty on the assessee as set out in his order dated March 24, 1986. The amount of penalty was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has submitted that the ratio of this judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. The view taken by the Tribunal to the effect that the Revenue had failed to discharge its onus to prove "concealment of income" is certainly a reasonably possible view. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio of the abovereferred decision, we have reached the conclusion that no case is made out by the Revenue with the decision of the Tribunal and the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is a finding of fact. The assumption of "concealment of income" made in questions Nos. 2 and 3 referred to us is without any factual basis. No penalty could be imposed on the assessee merely on the basis of the abovereferred offer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
