9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (8) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 56(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has submitted the statement of the case and has referred the following question for the opinion of this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is justified ? " The assessee is a partnership firm. A searc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erits after completion of assessments." In due course, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax levied penalty of varying amounts for assessment years 1956-57 to 1965-66, which were the assessment years involved. The assessee preferred ten appeals to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which by a consolidated order dated 31st July, 1971, reduced the penalties to the minimum imposable un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary disclosure of its concealed income he has to be absolved from penalty. It is of course a circumstance which can be taken into consideration by the income-tax authorities in determining the quantum of penalty. The Tribunal has, in fact, taken into consideration this fact and has reduced the penalty to the minimum imposable under the law. The other contention that the assessee had never agreed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction. The assessee could not have been absolved from penalty because on its own admission it had rendered itself liable to penalty. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, could not allow any further relief to the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that the sum of Rs. 6 lakhs offered by the assessee to be taxed was not its income. The offer was made only to avoid harassment and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
