TMI Blog1982 (9) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal legally correct in ignoring the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) which formed part of the section ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in view of section 139(1) read with section 64(l)(ii) and footnote 2 of the prescribed form of return, was the assessee guilty of concealment of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in not showing the share income of his minor son, Pawan Kumar, from the firm in which the assessee was a partner ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal legally correct in cancelling penalty of Rs. 20,000 imposed by the IAC u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? " The material facts lie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn her income received from a partnership firm, but she did not disclose the income received by her husband and minor daughter from that firm. It was held that the assessee had concealed the income and penalty was imposed on her under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the order of penalty. On the application of the Commissioner, the Tribunal referred a question of law for the opinion of the High Court. The High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Commissioner appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal was heard by a Bench of two hon'ble judges. Their Lordships considered the form of income-tax return which had a note requiring the assessee to show in the return all the income which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment within the meaning of s. 34(1)(a) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. Their Lordships observed that in their view the earlier decision did not lay down the correct law on the subject, but they refrained from referring the matter to a larger Bench because the form of the income-tax return had been changed from 1st April, 1972, and a separate column had been provided for showing the " income arising to spouse, minor child or any other person, as referred to in Chap. V of the Act ", and the question had thus become only academic. Though in Kochammu Amma's case [1980] 125 ITR 624 (SC), their Lordships took a different view, the earlier decision in Muthiah Chettiar's case [1969] 74 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
