1997 (7) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... his court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in cancelling penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" The relevant facts as stated in the statement of the case are that the assessee in the status of individual, carried on business in commission agency pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... idual business for the aforesaid period and levied penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, "the Act"). On appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that there could be two views in the matter and, therefore, it was not a fit case for penalty. The question for consideration is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t, was carried on right from the first day of the accounting year i.e., April 1, 1967. In the partnership deed, it is stated that the partnership business commenced from April, 1, 1967. On these facts the Tribunal was of the view that two views could be possible and, therefore, it was not a fit case for levying the penalty. It is important to note that the income of the entire year was disclosed b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X