9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntal reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1969-70, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following six questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions read thus : " (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that no opportunity was given to the assessee when the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was invoked by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is sustainable in view of the notice of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner dated February 1, 1974 ? (6) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions 271(1)(a), 273(b) and 271(l)(b) of the Act Charge interest under section 217. Give concession in tax as per Taxation Concessions Order, 1964." Though section 271(1)(c) was not mentioned as one of the sections which the Income-tax Officer was satisfied was attracted, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to whom the reference was made imposed penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs under section 271(1)(c) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Officer in the order of assessment that he was satisfied about the applicability of the provisions of section 271(1)(c). He however, stated that the facts referred to in the order of assessment clearly indicate that the assessee had concealed his income. On the other hand, Mr. Pikale, learned counsel for the assessee, relied upon the Supreme Court's decision, CIT v. S. V. Angidi Chet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied in clauses (a), (b) and (c) before the proceedings are concluded. There is no evidence on record to show that the Income-tax Officer, in this case, was satisfied in the course of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, we must hold that the penal provisions of section 271(1)(c) were not attracted in this case. The question is, therefore, answered accordingly in the affirmative and in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
