9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng question has been referred to us. In the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in drawing the inference that no concealment was established in respect of the sum of Rs. 1,73,678 and that no penalty was justified ? It appears that this reference relates to the assessment orders for the assessment year 1948-49 and is arising out of the penalty under s. 28(1)(c) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y inflated the purchases of raw jute at Bhairab Agency in order to reduce its tax liability and that the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, the ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 70,000 under s. 28(1)(c) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The assessee thereafter appealed to the AAC The AAC observed that it was possible for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l held that although there was justification in making an addition in the assessment, it could not be held, as a matter of fact, that the assessee concealed the particulars of its income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that no concealment was established and that the penalty was unjustified. It appears that there was evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
