9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (10) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances of the case and in view of the provisions contained in section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Explanation thereto, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty imposed on the assessee ? (2) That the order of the Tribunal is legally perverse as it has failed to consider its own order passed in quantum appeal which is a relevant piece of evidence ? " Let us now turn to the facts of the case. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee filed a return declaring a loss of Rs. 1,769. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITO noticed a cash credit of Rs. 17,000, in the name of Gauri Shankar Mittal. The ITO examined Gauri Shanker Mittal and came to the conclusion that Gauri Shanker Mittal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rived at by the Tribunal was one of pure fact. In these circumstances, the Commissioner has filed this application under s. 256(2). Learned counsel for the revenue has strenuously urged that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse inasmuch as it has not taken into consideration the effect of the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. He has also argued that the Tribunal has ignored the finding arrived at in the assessment proceedings in pursuance of which Rs. 17,000 has been added as the assessee's undisclosed income. In support of this contention, he has relied upon CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC). We have carefully scrutinized the appellate order of the Tribunal and find that the Tribunal was very much alive to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o penalty can be imposed. It is sufficient to point out that the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal after a correct application of the principles of law cannot give rise to a substantial question of law for which reference may be called. To believe or not to believe certain evidence was perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In CIT v. Amway Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC), it was observed that it would be perfectly legitimate to say that the mere fact that the explanation of the assessee is false, does not necessarily give rise to the inference that the disputed amount represents income. It cannot be said that the finding given in the assessment proceedings for determination or computing the tax is conclusive. However, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
