TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1990. Penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Vide order dated August 17, 1990, a penalty of Rs.1,60,000 was imposed. Aggrieved by the order of penalty imposed by the assessing authority, the assessee filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide order dated March 12, 1991, held that the assessee had filed the revised return and voluntarily surrendered the entire amount "before the investigation unit had given conclusion regarding concealment in this case...". It was also noticed that along with the voluntary return, the assessee had paid the additional tax because it "wanted to buy peace and expected a lenient treatment from the Department in view of the voluntary nature of its admission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stituting the Division Bench are agreed on the fact that the drafts although not accounted for on the dates of actual purchase were accounted for subsequently in the books. of account. 2. The accountant of the assessee was an old person who did not write books of account on day-to-day basis and the non-accounting of the drafts on the correct dates was squarely attributable to him. 3. The assessee had filed the revised return prior to the date of issue of notice under section 148 and in the said revised return the sum of Rs.2,50,000 had been offered for taxation. 4. The assessee had offered the entire amount for taxation without working out the peak and getting some consequential benefit. 5. The proceedings under section 148 had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ittal, learned counsel for the assessee, has contended that concealment of income is primarily a question of fact. The Commissioner and the Tribunal have recorded pure findings of fact and found that there was no concealment of income. Thus, no question of law arises in the case which may require a reference to this court. On consideration of the matter, we find that the Tribunal's decision was not entirely based on the view taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sir Shadilal's case [1987] 168 ITR 705. In fact, the majority of the members have found as a fact that the drafts of the total value of Rs.2,50,000 had been accounted for in the books of account. The accountant of the assessee was an old person and the non-accounting of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
