9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), referred the following question of law for the assessment year 1977-78 : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 15,218 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " As to what are the facts in the case we may refer a portion of paragraph 2 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Officer started penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and asked the assessee to explain as to why it should not be penalised. The assessee replied that the aforesaid difference arose merely because of difference of opinion between the assessee and the Income-tax Officer and so it should not be considered as a result of any concealment of income on the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, therefore, liable to penalty as was rightly imposed by the Income-tax Officer. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission. Even if the presumption is raised against the assessee, but then that presumption had been rebutted by the assessee and the Tribunal after taking note of all the facts came to a conclusion that there was no concealment of income. The aforesaid principle advanced by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
