9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to state a case and refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax in view of the Explanation to section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclosure, the Income-tax Officer computed certain income of the assessee under section 41(2) of the Act and, for the purpose of computation, the Income-tax Officer adopted a certain basis according to his own mode of computation. Consequently, the assessee was subjected to a penalty of Rs. 1,11,933 under the provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Act. The penalty was imposed by the Inspecting As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess than 80 per cent. of the assessed income, the presumption is raised against the assessee that the assessee is guilty of fraud or gross or wilful neglect as a result of which he has concealed the income but this presumption can be rebutted. The rebuttal must be on materials relevant and cogent. It is for the fact-finding body to judge the relevancy and sufficiency of the materials. If such a fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrived at by the Tribunal was in any way perverse or can be said to have been vitiated for non-consideration of relevant materials or has been arrived at by taking into account any irrelevant materials. In this view of the matter, the, finding of the Tribunal appears to be a finding of fact and no question of law arises out of the impugned order of the Tribunal for a reference under the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
