TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imum penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income based on the addition of Rs. 1 lakh in the total income sustained by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal itself worked out on the basis of suppressed sale of liquor as noticed during search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not perverse ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income ? or in the alternative (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not required to sustain the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in case it was not satisfied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs. The assessee took the matter further in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated June 27, 1988, in I. T. A. No. 405/JP of 1987 sustained an addition of Rs. 1 lakh only. But in the meantime, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner levied penalty of Rs. 18,56,186 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income on the basis of the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs. The assessee filed appeal against this order under section 271(1)(c) before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by order dated December 20, 1988, reduced the quantum of penalty in proportion to the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs reduced to Rs. 1 lakh. While deciding the appeal the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts concluded that the explanation given by the assessee was bona fide and addition of Rs. 1 lakh only was justified. The Tribunal did not record a finding that there was concealment of income by the respondent-assessee. Learned Counsel in Support of his submission relied on the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 543 and in particular drew our attention to para. 5 to contend that whether or not the assessee has concealed its income is a question to be decided on the facts of a case and where the decision that the income was not concealed was recorded by the Tribunal, no question of law arises for consideration. He cited the case of Addl. CIT v. Noor Mohd. and Co. [1974] 97 ITR 705 (Raj), in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
