9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 25,000 levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " Assessment year 1967-68 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 12,200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed these assessments. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were initiated by referring the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner rejected the assessee's explanation that there was no concealment of income and held that the assessee was liable to imposition of penalty in respect of both these years under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e application made by the Revenue that the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the aforesaid questions for the decision of this court. Having heard both the sides, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has set aside the penalty imposed on the assessee for both these years without recording the requisite findings on the basis of which alone the question of penalty can be decided. The returned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of these findings. Obviously, this was not done on account of the fact that all concerned including the Tribunal appear to have overlooked this statutory provision contained in the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the above conclusions reached by this court, the matter has to go back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision by adverting to the above observations. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
