9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he question of law relating to two assessment years of the same assessee. The Revenue has moved this court for a mandamus directing the Tribunal to refer the following questions for the opinion of this court. " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalties of Rs. 25,515 and Rs. 45,680 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000 was credited by the assessee to his capital account and Rs. 30,000 each to the accounts of his two sons. Thereafter, he filed revised returns for the said years showing Rs. 25,675 as additional income in the year 1969-70 and Rs. 44,645 for the latter year. The assessment was thereafter finalised and the net income assessable was assessed at Rs. 25,515 and Rs. 45,680 respectively for the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 for accepting the explanation offered by the assessee. The decision in Addl. CIT v. Karnail Singh [1974] 94 ITR 505 (P H), was overruled by this court in a later Full Bench decision in Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 652 (P H) which also clarified that the ratio of Anwar Ali's case which was based on the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
