9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the "Act"), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "A" (in short "the Tribunal"), for the opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 35,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd was taken by the assessee that the books of account did not belong to it, such contention was rejected. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner worked out the peak credit in so far as the unexplained cash credits were concerned at Rs. 48,869. Accordingly, the addition was restricted to Rs. 48,869. In the meantime proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated and referred to the Ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty of Rs. 35,000, being 75 per cent. of the tax which would have been avoided if the income returned by the assessee had been accepted as the correct income, was imposed. The matter was challenged in appeal before the Tribunal. By judgment dated September 17, 1975, in I.T.A. No. 850 (Del) of 1972-73, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty, on the basis of several factors which weighed with it a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalysis of the factual position as drawn by the Tribunal is contrary to material and evidence on record. Further the law laid down by the apex court in CIT (Addl.) v. Jeevan Lal Sah [1994] 205 ITR 244 as also the decision of the apex court in CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 14 has not been kept in view. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee in spite of notice. On a read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
