9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "the Act"), for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to refer the questions raised by the petitioner in this petition to this court. For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee had submitted a return declaring an income of Rs. 75,000 and, vide the assessment order dated April 26, 1973, the Income-tax Officer assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,41,595. Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee at Rs. 2,25,707. Penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, vide order dated March 31, 1976, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,03,620. The said penalty was divided in two components, Rs. 19,508 was 20% of the difference of tax sought to be evaded on total income of Rs. 2,25,707 and returned income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is court was rejected by the Tribunal by order dated July 26, 1988. Hence, this application by the assessee to this court. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the assessee and we have also perused the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. We find that the penalty of Rs. 84,112 which was imposed by the Inspecting A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessed income of Rs. 2,25,707. The assessee was, therefore, liable for imposition of penalty of 100% on the income assessed on June 29, 1974, in accordance with the provisions of section 271 of the Act as in force on June 29, 1974. The penalty of Rs. 40,000 imposed on the assessee cannot, therefore, be held to be in contravention of the provisions of the Act. In our opinion, no question of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
