9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act read with the Explanation appended thereto ? " In these two tax cases, we are concerned with the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. The assessee returned a sum of Rs. 87,712 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal relied upon Hindustan Steel Limited v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC), in which it has been held that no penalty could be imposed unless the party acted in deliberate defiance of law or was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or had acted in conscious disregard of his obligation. The deletion of penalty, on this ground, was not accepted by the Commissioner. An applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was no case for imposition of penalty. It appears that the Appellate Tribunal gave some relief to the assessee in terms of which the assessable amount has fallen and the gap between the assessed sum and the returned sum is less than 20 per cent. (of the assessed amount). We have no reason to doubt that the order filed before us is not a correct copy of the order passed by the Tribunal. Mr. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
