9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ofit from the Kallatra Constructions, Rs. 5,982. After the assessments were completed, proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) were initiated on the ground that the assessee had concealed income for both the years. The thrust of the charge was in relation to the income from contract works for the two years and the share of profit from Kallatra Constructions during the latter year. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 30,500 respectively, for the two years. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that there was no concealment of income for the year 1966-67 and cancelled the penalty in its entirety. For the assessment year 1967-68, it was held that there was concealment of inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tructions which had become final as the assessee had not sought any reference in relation to that. On the quantum of penalty, the Tribunal directed that the penalty shall be the minimum leviable. The petitioner sought reference of various questions of law as arising out of the order of the Tribunal. But the Tribunal refused reference on the ground that they were questions of fact not liable to be referred. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even on the principles and guidelines laid down by this court in the earlier judgment, in relation to the filing of the revised return, no penalty was liable to be imposed on the petitioner for the two years in question. He points out that, even before the returns were filed in June, 1968, inve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s court. Though the Tribunal has found concealment in relation to the Kallatra Constructions even in the earlier proceedings, that has become final and that finding is not liable to be reopened at this stage. The only question open is whether there is concealment of income and liability for penalty under section 271(1)(c) in relation to the income from contract works. We, therefore, allow the original petitions and direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : Assessment year 1966-67: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
