9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (11) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following questions of law to this court for its opinion: " 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of penalty for concealment of income on all the four heads ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in applying the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evised return was filed to correct a typing error. The amount of depreciation to be added back was wrongly typed in the original return as Rs. 11,814, instead of Rs. 22,796. In all other respects, the revised, return was the same as the original return. While framing the assessment, the ITO held that income to the extent of Rs. 23,168 was concealed by the assessee and hence, that amount was added ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... November 18, 1967. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the assessee as well as the department made applications for making a reference to this court. The first two questions have been referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee, and the third question has been referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the Department. So far as the second question is concerned, that ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cern. The decision in Dayabhai Co. v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 364 (MP), however, refers to the registration of the assessee in the assessment year 1956-57 and that decision cannot be pressed into service for holding that the said concern was in existence and that payment was made to that concern by the assessee in the assessment year in question, as alleged by the assessee. There was material before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
