9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdiction to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of sub-clause (2) of section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was valid ?" When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows : "On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
