TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 96 passed by the learned CIT(A) for assessment year 1986-87 cancelling the penalty of Rs. 58,000 levied under section 271(1)( c ) of the Act. 2. The learned DR relied upon the reasons mentioned in the penalty order. The ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A). 3. The assessee furnished a return of income delcaring an income of Rs. 42,780. The asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts stated in the assessment order are of general nature which have been mentioned in the assessment order for invoking the provisions of section 145. The learned DR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sarad Kumar v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 588 (All.) and the decision reported in 87 Taxman 275 to support his contention that the penalty can be levied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestigation the assessee was confronted with evidence and material and he failed to disclose the factual position on the basis of which additions were made, the case stands on a different footing. In such a case, it is always open to draw an inference of concealment or of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, resulting from deliberate underestimate of income. This was a case where the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
