TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal, Delhi Bench, (SMC) Delhi (hereinafter described as "the Tribunal"), for reference of the following questions of law: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the entire penalty even when the assessee was not able to substantiate his explanation and he also failed to prove that all the facts mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cinema v. CIT [1989] 179 ITR 628?" The assessee is engaged in the transport business. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), he filed a return of income on July 3, 1986, declaring the income of Rs. 35,270. The assessing authority did not accept the return and assessed his income at Rs. 2,55,630. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 (decided on May 11, 1999), but argued that the other points would require consideration by the court. We have carefully perused the record and are of the opinion that the present case is fully covered by the order dated May 11, 1999 (CIT v. Prem Das (No. 1) [2001] 248 ITR 234) passed in I. T. C. No. 14 of 1998 and there is no valid ground to take a different view. The submission of Shri Sawh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
