9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (5) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the assessee is a registered firm and carried on business of fabrication of staple cloth, purchase and sale of yarn and ready made cloth. During the accounting year ending March 31, 1968, relevant to the assessment year 1968-69, which is the second year of the assessee's business, the assessee filed two returns-one on August 9, 1968, declaring an income of Rs. 30,856 and the second on October 29, 1968, declaring an income of Rs. 31,211. The ITO noticed a cash credit of Rs. 20,000 in the name of Tarsem Lal in the books of the assessee on which no interest had been paid. The assessee made a statement that the amount had been brought by Tarsem Lal from Gian Chand who was a well to do person, but this explanation was not accepted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declined by the Tribunal, vide order dated August 5, 1974. He has now come up in this petition under s. 256(2) of the Act to this court. It is contended by Mr. Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the approach of the Accountant Member as well as the Vice-President in deciding the matter was not based on correct principles. He has vehemently argued that while deciding the question as to whether the assessee was liable to pay penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Accountant Member and the Vice-President misinterpreted the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c). According to the counsel, if the Explanation was not taken into consideration in the right perspective, the question of fact decided on that basis will be a question of law by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her held that in the final analysis all that had been done was that the assessee's explanation had been rejected and thereby the amount of Rs. 20,000 had been treated as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. He also held that by producing Tarsem Lal, Gian Chand, etc., the assessee had displaced the presumption that he was not guilty of any fraud or gross or wilful neglect. These findings are essentially findings of fact and the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the findings unless he sought to challenge those findings by seeking a reference to this court. The petitioner, however, did not do so. It is settled law that the conclusions drawn by the Appellate Tribunal are all findings of fact and on such findings no question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervations in the majority judgment. On the other hand, the Accountant Member and the Vice-President came to the conclusion that the assessee had been able to discharge the burden placed on it by the Explanation given under s.271(1)(c). In Swastik Mineral Corporation's case [1979] 118 ITR 583 (SC), the Tribunal set aside the order of penalty passed against the assessee and in doing so did not take into consideration the Explanation given in s. 271(1)(c). In spite of this, the Supreme Court did not direct the Tribunal to refer the question to the High Court. This case rather helps the assessee to some extent. The facts in Jawahar Woollen Textile Mills' case [1973] 92 ITR 510 (Punj) were different. There a creditor had made a statement that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
