https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26968 A referable question of law arose on whether minimum penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be upheld solely because the assessee admitted the addition and agreed to penalty in a settlement letter during reassessment, or whether independent proof of concealment was still required. The High Court treated the proposed questions as overlapping, reframed them into one consolidated issue, and held that the penalty question arose from the Tribunal's order and merited reference under section 256(2). The Tribunal was directed to state the question for the High Court's opinion, with parties left to bear their own costs. en-us Fri, 03 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:46:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26968 A referable question of law arose on whether minimum penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be upheld solely because the assessee admitted the addition and agreed to penalty in a settlement letter during reassessment, or whether independent proof of concealment was still required. The High Court treated the proposed questions as overlapping, reframed them into one consolidated issue, and held that the penalty question arose from the Tribunal's order and merited reference under section 256(2). The Tribunal was directed to state the question for the High Court's opinion, with parties left to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 03 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26968