9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of the view that in order to impose penalty, there must be a categorical finding of fact that the transaction of loan relied on by the assessee was a bogus transaction. It is only then the question of imposition of penalty may arise. We concur with the view so taken as in our opinion: it does not call for any interference. In fact, the view so taken is based on questions of fact and cannot be f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee questions of law for being referred to this court by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Act. However, the Tribunal declined to refer the questions holding that the questions proposed are essentially questions of fact and hence, they cannot be said to arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal in appeal. The following were the questions proposed to the Tribunal for being referred and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied in the case of the income assessed on negative figure even though Explanation 4 to section 271(1) provided for levy of penalty in such cases? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the decision of the M. P. High Court in the case of CIT v. Jaora Sugar Mills is applicable to the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position of penalty on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as also by the Tribunal holding that in the absence of any factual finding that the loans taken by the assessee were bogus, no penalty can be imposed. In other words, the appellate authorities, i.e., the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
