9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (4) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Act, 1922, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, and the following question has been referred for our opinion : "Whether, upon the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that a penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was attracted to this case ?" The dispute relates to the assessment for the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssable income was enhanced. On appeal to the Tribunal, the enhancement made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was deleted, but the order of the Income-tax Officer was upheld. The Income-tax Officer, thereafter, initiated proceedings under section 28(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee gave a written explanation to the notice on February 10, 1959, but the Income-tax Officer did not agree with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 1947. It also relied upon the finding given in the quantum appeal that misleading information was given, namely, that the assessee did not want to mix up the zamindari income with the amount received from his relations while he had in fact done so. Following the decision of this court in the case of Lalchand Gopal Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax, it held that a penalty was leviable in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntum appeal and on the fact that the explanation given by the assessee was false. The approach of the Tribunal was justified so long as the case of Lalchand Gopal Das held the field, but cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Anwar Ali's case. We, accordingly, answer the question referred in the negative and against the department, and in favour of the assessee. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
