9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , M/s. Bhag Mal Charanji Lal, is a Hindu undivided family concern. Darshan Kumar, one of the coparceners, entered into partnership agreement on May 1, 1967, with one Pashupati Nath to carry on the business of sale of petroleum products under the firm name "Darshan Kumar & Co." The amounts of Rs. 995 and Rs. 10,413 received by way of profits from the said concern for the assessment years 1968-69 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing been upheld up to the Tribunal stage and the assessee's application under section 256(1) of the Act also having been rejected, he moved the present petition under section 256(2) of the Act for issuing a mandamus to get the following questions referred : "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal in imposing the penalty violates the provision of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... individual or a Hindu undivided family and whatever may be the outcome, no penalty was exigible as there was no concealment within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) ? The learned counsel for the assessee contended that it was not a case of concealment of income because the assessee honestly believed that the income derived from M/s. Darshan Kumar & Co. was the personal income of Darshan Kumar eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the applicant also did not advance any serious argument in this regard. This petition is, consequently, allowed to the extent stated above and the Tribunal is directed to refer the following question to this court together with the statement of the case : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty would be exigible under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
