TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is applicable to the case of the assessee though the said decision relates to an assessment year when the penalty for concealment was linked with the amount of income concealed and not with the amount of tax ought to be evaded ?" The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company filed the return of income declaring the loss of Rs. 3,00,93,187 and the assessment was completed at a loss of Rs. 2,85,159. The assessee has claimed investment allowance of Rs. 1,23,71,486. On the queries made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee revised the return of income and claimed investment allowance of Rs. 1,09,58,055. In the process, the assessee withdrew the excess claim of deduction to the extent of Rs. 14,84,451. The Assessing Officer found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obliged to answer the question. Mr. Jain, however, appeals to us to render opinion on the question directed to be sent by the Tribunal under section 256 of the Income-tax Act. He does not seriously dispute that the question sent for our opinion is academic in nature but he contends that once the reference has been made, the same deserves to be answered. Having appreciated the rival submission, we are of the opinion that the question of imposition of penalty shall arise only when it is found that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, the finding of the Tribunal is that the assessee has not concealed the income or the amount of tax and hence whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e real issue between the taxpayer and the department. If the power of the High Court to refuse to answer questions other than those which are questions of law directly related to the dispute between the taxpayer and the department, and which, when answered, would determine qua that question the dispute, be granted, we fail to see any ground for restricting that power when by an erroneous order the High Court has directed the Tribunal to state a case on a question which did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. We are unable, therefore, to hold that at the hearing of a reference pursuant to an order calling upon the Tribunal to state a case, the High Court must proceed to answer the question without considering whether it arises out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
