9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gent. For the assessment year 1970-71, it filed a return showing an income of Rs. 8,660. The assessing authority assessed the income at Rs. 1,02,050 which was reduced to Rs. 99,760 by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and to Rs. 94,760 by the Tribunal. The Income-tax Officer had found during the course of the proceedings that the assessee had been doing business outside its books and had invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r called "the Act") which was allowed and the following three questions have been referred to this court : "(i) Whether the Tribunal has been right in law in holding that when the Income-tax Officer and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner did not invoke the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue for the first time could not support the levy of penalty with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P H). As the decision in the said case has been overruled by the Fail Bench of this court in Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 652, the order of the Tribunal was also liable to be reversed. We, however, do not find any merit in this contention. Reliance on Karnail Singh's case [1974] 94 ITR 505 (P H) was placed by learned counsel for the assessee and not by the Tribunal. As noticed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee that there was no concealed income has been accepted which means that the burden placed on the assessee by the Explanation stands discharged. No fault, therefore, could be found with the order of the Tribunal and question No. (iii) is accordingly answered in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
