9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 274(2) read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" The dispute relates to a penalty order. The assessee filed a return of income on September 17, 1966, showing business incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below : Rs. 1. Nathmal Bantia 19-3-1964 25,000 2. Bantia Bros. 23-3-1964 25,000 3. Bantia Bros. 26-3-1964 25,000 4. Ash Karan Bantia 28-3-1964 30,000 --------------- 1,05,000 --------------- In the course of the enquiry, the assessee was given an opportunity to adduce evidence but it declined to avail of it on the ground that it had already made a disclosure to the Commissioner un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty of Rs. 32,900. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal and contended that the case did not call for any penalty. The Tribunal, after elaborate discussion of the facts, came to the finding that the amount of Rs. 50,000 brought to tax by the Income-tax Officer related to only a part of the credits of Rs. 1,05,000 appearing in the names of four parties in the assessee's books of account and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 972] 85 ITR 67. The Tribunal further observed that there was no evidence other than the above admission of the assessee that the disputed amount represented its income. The Department had not been able to gather any such evidence. This being a case of imposition of penalty, the onus lies on the Department to bring sufficient material on record to justify the order of penalty. The Tribunal's findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
