1994 (9) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n has been referred under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our consideration: " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 13,000 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vember 12, 1964. Though it was claimed that the firm of Messrs. Thakur Dass Manohar Lal was a genuine firm with four partners including the assessee, the Income-tax Officer assessing the firm treated it as the individual business of the assessee and held the other two partners, Thakur Dass Kathuria and Devi Dass, as his benamidars. There were cash deposits of Rs. 6,500 each in their accounts in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... were treated as the unexplained income of the assessee and that they did not belong to the persons in whose accounts they appeared. The order of the Income-tax Officer is made annexure 'A' and forms part of the case. The Income-tax Officer also initiated proceedings for the levy of Rs. 13,000 as income concealed. The Income-tax Officer referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X