9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition on which penalty was levied ?" The assessee is an individual and a partner in the firm of Chinnikrishna Chetty. Besides his share income from business, he derived income from properties as well as from other sources. In respect of the assessment year 1965-66, he returned an income of Rs. 42,396 and the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 64,960. In so doing, the Income-tax Officer added a sum of Rs. 31,193 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The amount so added represented the difference between the peak credit of the assessee in his personal accounts with the firm of Rs. 1,11,193 as on October 15, 1964, as against the admitted figure of Rs. 80,000. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was contended on behalf of the assessee that R, Parandamiah had submitted an affidavit sworn to on April 1.8, 1970, before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner along with the reply submitted in answer to the show-cause notice issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had erroneously proceeded on the footing that no evidence was produced in support of the assessee's case. The assessee also contended before the Tribunal that the affidavit of R. Parandamiah to the effect that the assessee had been repaid a sum of Rs. 40,000 by him should be accepted and that even apart from the explanation offered by the assessee, there was no other material on record to show that the income had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 1977, dated September 22, 1981) since reported in [1989] 177 ITR 149 (Mad). On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that it was open to the Tribunal to independently consider the merits of the case regarding the levy of penalty, even though the order of assessment had been set aside and the matter remitted to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Inasmuch as the order of assessment passed against the assessee had been set aside by the Tribunal by its order in I.T.A. No. 1097(Mds)/1970-71 dated June 25, 1973, which has also been noticed in paragraph 6 of its order, the question of levy of penalty cannot be considered to be available for adjudication by the Tribunal. When, even according to the Tribunal, the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 335 of 1977, dated September 22, 1981)- [1989] 177 ITR 149 (Mad) . In that case also, as in this case, the Income-tax Officer passed an order of assessment and on further appeal, the Tribunal had set aside the assessment. However, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner initiated proceedings for levy of penalty and also levied a penalty of Rs. 27,226 and the question before the Tribunal was whether the levy of penalty was proper. The Tribunal cancelled the penalty, as, for another year, the levy of penalty had been cancelled on the ground that the additions did not represent the undisclosed income of the assessee. In considering the propriety of the cancellation of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Division Bench poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
