2007 (4) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t having been discharged by an acceptable explanation the presumption under that Explanation warranted the penalty proceedings – therefore, Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalties levied u/s 271(1)(c), for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1975-76 - Tribunal’s order cancelling the penalty for the year 1977-78 was correct - 182 of 1987 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2007 - SUSHIL HARKAULI and A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hed an explanation for rebutting the presumption. With regard to such explanation the Tribunal in paragraph 16 of its order date January 21, 1982, made the following observation: "The whole thing appears to be a got up story to cover up the claim of the assessee for extra investment in the business of pawning and money-lending." 5. Thus, the explanation of the petitioner was held to be conco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee upon two decisions of this court, namely, in CIT v. University Printers [1991] 188 ITR 206 and CIT v. Dharam Pal Singh [1992] 193 ITR 769 are misplaced because these decisions do not consider the impact of the Explanation to section 271(1) (c), as it existed during the relevant period, the impact of the presumption under that Explanation, and the effect of non-rebuttal of that pre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X