TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has referred the following two questions : "(1) Whether, on the material on record, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal could legally come to the conclusion that the assessee had discharged the burden which lay upon him in terms of the Explanation to section 271 (1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected the explanation and imposed a penalty against which an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was dismissed. The matter was then carried to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, applying the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696, found that mere rejection of the assessee's explanation is not sufficient to impose penalty under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 271 (1)(c) of the Act inasmuch as his return was supported by his books of account. No reason is brought to our notice to disturb the said findings of the Tribunal. Once the said findings stand, in our opinion, the levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act is not valid. Accordingly, we answer the two questions referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
