9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (5) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the assessment appeal given after the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's penalty order cannot be considered for deciding the penalty appeal ? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the assessee had not committed any fraud, gross or wilful neglect is based on valid materials and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ? " The assessment year involved is 1964-65, the accounting period ending on March 31, 1964. The assessee carried on business in the name of Asok Pictures. In the year of account, the Income-tax Officer noticed a credit of Rs. 35,000. Ultimately, hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Seth Muralidhar Hiranand. If these materials were incorporated in the penalty order, perhaps our order might have been different. But, as it is, we cannot consider these materials because they were not in the mind of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner when he imposed the penalty. As we have stated earlier, the penalty order has to be decided on the materials brought in the order itself to support it. If we were to consider materials which were not present in the order, then we would be substituting our penalty order in place of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's order." It is an admitted fact that the return submitted by the assessee had shown a sum of Rs. 35,000 as outstanding in favour of three parties, but ultimately it was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned by any person is less than eighty per cent. of the total income (hereinafter in this Explanation referred to as the correct income) as assessed under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 (reduced by the expenditure incurred bona fide by him for the purpose of making or earning any income included in the total income but which has been disallowed as a deduction) such person shall, unless he proves that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part, be deemed to have, concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section." Obviously, the decision rendered in CIT v. Anwar Ali [197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
