TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The questions are as under : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 38,100 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse inasmuch as the relevant facts have not been properly evaluated and wrong conclusion is drawn ?" We have heard learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department in support of this application, and are of the opinion that the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is concluded by findings of fact and does not give rise to any question of law. The Tribunal has in categorical term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f section 40(b) of the Act, being the amount of interest paid to a partner of a firm. On this finding, the assessee was eventually subjected to a penalty of Rs. 38,100 by the Income-tax Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act after obtaining the approval of the concerned Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The imposition of penalty was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, when the matter came to be considered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in second appeal, the Tribunal did not agree with the income-tax authorities and cancelled the penalty order. It held : "We are not convinced of the argument given by the Departmental authorities that withdrawal or transfer of funds was in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty, nor guilt of concealment could be said to have been established. This is what exactly has happened in the instant case. The question whether the assessee was guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) is essentially one of fact. It could not be shown to us that the Tribunal misdirected itself in any manner in appreciating the material that was before it or it omitted to consider the relevant factors germane to the imposition of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, this application is without merit and is, accordingly, rejected, by saying that the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is concluded by the findings of fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
