TMI Blog1982 (6) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was leviable on the assessee ? " The facts of the case were as follows : The ITO, while computing the total income of the assessee, added back an amount of Rs. 5,33,459 to the total income of the assessee. Simultaneously, he initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned representative for the assessee submitted that these were fully covered by the assessee's disclosure of Rs. 8,52,942 under s. 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, which was accepted by the Department and so the assessee could not be penalised in respect of these accounts. Further, it was submitted that the Department had not been able to establish with positive evidence that the assessee had concea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lows : " It has often been said that each proceeding under the Income-tax Act is a self-contained proceeding and the findings in one proceeding do not become binding in respect of other proceedings. Now, it is difficult to understand why this well-known principle should be departed from in penalty proceedings. If anything, if the principle is not well established so far as the assessment proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eted the assessment on total income of Rs. 4,18,188 after making various additions and disallowances. Of these additions, the chief item is of Rs. 3,15,814, about which the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has made out quite a convincing case against the assessee at para. 6 of his penalty order. However, the reasons given by him, though quite valid for the purpose of assessing the amount as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
