1988 (12) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e-tax imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,80,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act., 1961. The assessment had been made in the status of an unregistered firm. The Income-tax Officer stated, while making the assessment, that as in the previous years, the application for registration by the assessee was rejected and the assessment was completed as a protective measure. It was stated before the T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the Tribunal in the assessee's case for the assessment years 1963-64, 1966-67 and 1967-68. On going through the orders of the Tribunal for these years, the Tribunal found that the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) could not be validly initiated. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings for the year under reference had not been validly initiated. On these facts, the f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e in the assessment of an assessee. Thereafter, in penalty proceedings, the competent authority has to probe into and decide whether there has been any concealment of income. But where there is a dispute as to whether such income allegedly concealed would be assessed in the hands of X or Y, unless the determination is made by the Income-tax Officer, no charge of concealment can be made against the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X