1990 (4) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nstance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad. Four questions have been proposed in this application. The sum and substance of these questions is whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in confirming the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax by which he deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act imposed on the assessee. The concurrent finding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Agency v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 455 and in particular to the following observations appearing in the judgment (at page 458) : ".... there is nothing in section 271 (1) (a) which requires that mens rea must be proved before penalty can be levied under that provision ... We hold that the element of mens rea was not required to be proved in the proceedings taken by the Income-tax Officer under secti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted by the first appellate authority as well as by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal remarked: ". . . since the entire tax payable by the assessee had been deducted at source, we are inclined to accept that the assessee had a bona fide belief that he will not be required to file the return. We accordingly decline to interfere with the order of the Appellate 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