TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate Tribunal is correct in law in cancelling penalty of Rs. 2,00,890 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ? The assessee-firm carried on business in hing, jeera, dry fruits, etc., in Delhi and Bombay. The assessee filed its return of income for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1983-84 on September 28, 1983, declaring its total income at Rs. 71,850. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment of the assessee on March 25, 1986, computing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 11,27,429. In the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the said amount was reduced and the assessee was finally assessed at Rs. 3,90,205 on the basis of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Thereafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Satnam Malik, [1979] 120 ITR 309. Relying on the said decision, learned counsel submitted that in the absence of new additional grounds there was no reason for the Tribunal to depart from its own findings given in the quantum appeal and, therefore, the question sought to be raised in this application is a question of law and is liable to be referred for the opinion of this court. We have considered the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Rajasthan High Court and, in our opinion, the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. We find that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter, in our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in the instant case in appreciating the evidence as disclosed from the record independently and without being in any way influenced by the earlier findings to be binding on it and conclusive. Learned counsel for the Revenue also relied upon a decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. K R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49. In our opinion, the facts and circumstances of the case are totally distinguishable from the facts of the present case and, in our opinion, the ratio of the said decision is not applicable. In the said case decided by the apex court there was no explanation put forward by the assessee as to wherefrom the extra money had come. In the instant case, the records disclose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
