TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in these petitions is : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide which penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Income-tax Officer was deleted?" I. T. C. No. 62 of 1989 relates to the assessment year 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spread over of the surrendered amount of Rs. 2 lakhs for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1981-82. Thereafter, a notice under section 148 was issued by the Income-tax Officer. Penalty proceedings were also initiated for the assessments years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, Finally, (sic) to Rs. 29,470, Rs. 27,230 and Rs. 28,110, respectively, on the following grounds :--- "(a) Firstly, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has not strictly adhered to voluntary disclosure already made and introduced cash in its account books out of its concealed income. Keeping in view the contradictory entries made, i.e., instead of disclosure of stock, cash was introduced, the disclosure made by the assessee-firm cannot be said as true". However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the plea of the respondent that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued to the Tribunal to make reference of the same to the High Court. Shri G. S. Sandhawalia relied on a decision of the Division Bench in CIT v. Shri Parshad [1984] 146 ITR 397 and argued that similar question has already been decided by the High Court and, therefore, the same need not be referred to this court once again. After having perused the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
