TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the "Tribunal"), has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had misdirected itself in law in deleting the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ?" This reference is pending in this court since 1985. The controversy pertains to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not intentional, no penalty could be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner did not accept the above contention of the assessee and levied penalty of Rs. 9,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is this penalty which was deleted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal arrived at a finding of fact that the omission was not intentional and, in that view of the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We do not find any infirmity in the above conclusion of the Tribunal. Law is well-settled that an order imposing penalty is a result of quasi-criminal proceedings and penalty should not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct, contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anner prescribed by the statute. In the present case, there is a categorical finding of the Tribunal that the omission to disclose the commission income of Rs. 9,000 in the original return was not intentional. In the face of this finding, the penalty levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
