TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this court : "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in dismissing Department's appeal against the Commissioner of Income-ax (Appeals) order cancelling penalty of Rs. 64,136 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordingly, the amount so surrendered was added to the income of the assessee. On account of the said addition, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated against the assessee. The explanation furnished by the assessee to the effect that the cash credits were surrendered on an understanding with the Department that no penalty under the said section will be levied was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has surrendered the amounts it did not follow that the amount agreed to be added represented its concealed income. The surrender so made also stand accepted and the Revenue has brought no material on record, besides the factum of surrender to show that the amounts involved represented undisclosed income of the assessee." The Revenue's application under section 256(1) of the Act having been dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct and cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. In any case the same are not sought to be challenged by the Revenue as perverse in the proposed questions. The ratio of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. K. P. Sampath Reddy [1992] 197 ITR 232, relied upon by Mr. R. D. Jolly, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, is not applicable on the facts of the present case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
