TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the " Act "), seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the proposed question of law as extracted below, on rejection of the application registered as RA No. 126/Ind of 1992 for the assessment year 1985-86, on December 19, 1992, arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal on May 15, 1992, in ITA No. 934/Ind of 1990, for our cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee filed objections. After consideration of the same, the Income-tax Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 15,000. This order was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee then filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal deleted the penalty on placing reliance on Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705 (SC). The applicant filed an application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt agreed to be added was concealed income. There may be a hundred and one reasons for such admission, i.e., when the assessee realises the true position, it does not dispute certain disallowances but that does not absolve the Revenue from proving the mens rea of a quasi-criminal offence.' In this connection, reference may also be made to Add. CIT v. Jeewandas Gyanchand [1983] 144 ITR 881 (MP) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o case of conscious concealment is visible. In view of the aforesaid position, the Tribunal committed no error in deleting the penalty. We are thus satisfied with the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal and conclude that the question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. In the result, we dismiss this application but without any order as to costs. Counsel fee is, howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
