1982 (4) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... law referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, on the direction of this court, are as follows : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee and that the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) is not attracted ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... maintaining the accounts which in fact meant that there was gross or wilful neglect on his part in returning the correct income. The Tribunal did not, in terms, raise the presumption under s. 271(1)(c). It, however, held that the assessee had not been negligent grossly or wilfully in returning the income, nor was there any question of fraud involved in the case. It has been held by this court in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tated that the margin of profit was estimated at 5 per cent. for the low income co-operative housing society contract because of certain specific reasons. Those reasons have not been stated by the Tribunal and we are, therefore, unable to judge whether the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee was not grossly or wilfully negligent in submitting the return is correct or not. In our opinion, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X