TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncies with its head office at Madras and branches at Salem, Calcutta, Vijayawada, Bangalore and H yderabad. The assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1966-67 disclosing an income of Rs. 1,65,826 as shown in the profit and loss account and the computation of income under various heads. The assessment was completed for the said assessment year on March 30, 1971, on a total income of Rs. 4, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come for both the assessment years and referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in terms of section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The facts leading to the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 for the assessment year 1966-67 and the addition of Rs. 9,68,750 for the assessment year 1967-68 have been considered in detail, by the court in the judgment in T. C. Nos. 292 and 293 of 1983 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the evidence of G.L. Pathy, the owner of the licence and the statements of R. N. Bhattad and R. S. Jhavar, and came to the conclusion that there was no positive evidence to show that the penalty was justified on the facts of the case. The Tribunal also held that there was no positive evidence to show that the moneys had reached the assessee's firm for its own benefit, though it was routed through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and held that on the facts of the case, there was no direct evidence of concealment of income. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion in holding that on the facts of the case, the levy of penalty was not justified and the penalty sought to be made was rightly deleted by the Tribunal. We find that the finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ?" Since there is no positive evidence to show that the income from the exploitation of the customs clearance permits had reached the assessee, we are of the opinion, that the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed for both the assessment years. Accordingly, we answer the above two questions of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. However, in the cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
