9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (9) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed by the IAC under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? " The relevant facts which need to be noticed for disposing of this application may be stated as follows: The Income-tax Officer, hereinafter called the ITO, after giving notice under s. 34 of the Indian IT. Act, 1922, made two additions of Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 75,000 in the income of the assessee, Shri Chandi Prasad, for the assessment year 1947-48. These additions were ultimately upheld by the Tribunal by its order dated February 25, 1972, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the second appeal of the assessee. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, hereinafter called the IAC of Income-tax, Bikaner Range, Bika ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no evidence on record to show that Shri P.C. Poddar had remitted the amount to the assessee. The IAC also discarded the contention of the assessee that as Rs. 1,00,000 had been added in the assessment order of M/s. Sewaram Kaluram, the HUF represented by Shri P. C. Poddar, the same amount could not be added in his income. On these reasons and in the absence of books of accounts of Shri P. C. Poddar, HUF, he also did not accept the contention of the assessee that Shri P. C. Poddar withdrew Rs.1,20,000 on November 8, 1946, and this amount was really utilised for the purchase of bank draft of the Punjab National Bank, Calcutta, in favour of the assessee. The IAC also noticed that there was no explanation as to where the money remained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled a reference application under s. 256(2) of the Act and has prayed us to require the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law mentioned above to this court. From the order of the Tribunal, it will appear that the Tribunal has cancelled the penalty on the sole ground that the falsity of the explanation given by the assessee in respect of the two items of Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 75,000 found entered in his bank account is not at all sufficient for the imposition of penalty for concealment of the income. In this regard, the Tribunal has placed reliance on a decision in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC). Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the department, has raised the following contentions before us: Firstly, that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Electricals Ltd. v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 721 (Raj) and CIT v. Smt. Satnam Malik [1979] 120 ITR 309 (Raj). In all these cases, it has been categorically held that the order of the Tribunal, in quantum appeal, is a very good piece of evidence, though not conclusive. The Tribunal, therefore, obviously erred in saying that there was no evidence worth the name for warranting the imposition of penalty. In view of the evidence in the form of the Tribunal's order and any evidence to the contrary in favour of the assessee, there is no reason to hold that there was no evidence for warranting the imposition of penalty by the IAC. Furthermore, there were enough circumstances and facts pointed out in the order of imposition of penalty which have not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
