1985 (8) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e assessee was assessed in the status of an individual. He filed his return showing income of Rs. 1,09,775.96 which was ultimately assessed at Rs. 2,04,265. The difference between the assessed sum and the returned sum being more than 20%, penalty proceeding was initiated in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. No explanation was given by the assessee before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that a question of law was involved in the case called for a reference. In obedience thereto, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following question for our opinion "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Incometax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the penalty of Rs. 94,560 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sideration before a Full Bench of this court. The question referred to us will be fully answered by the opinion of the Full Bench. The law has now been finally settled so far as this court is concerned. The Full Bench laid down that once a difference of more than 20% between the assessed income and the returned income occurred, it would be presumed that the assessee had concealed his correct inc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the question of law, we applied ourselves to the question whether we should direct the Tribunal to reconsider the matter and find out the facts but we find that no circumstance was brought on the record either in the penalty proceeding or at any stage which could point out in the direction that the assessee had not acted fraudulently or was not guilty of gross or wilful neglect. The assessee hav .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Rs. 13,006 has been mentioned. This seems to be a clerical mistake which was clarified by the Tribunal in the statement of facts. Thus, the penalty imposed was Rs. 94,560 and not Rs. 13,006. The sum mentioned in the order of this court dated February 16, 1981, be read accordingly. For the reasons stated above, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. As the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X