https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28313 Circumstantial evidence was held sufficient to support the Tribunal's finding that the assessee surrendered the amount at the persuasion of the Income-tax Officer. On that basis, the proposed challenge to cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) did not raise a referable question of law. Because the first proposed question was not referable, the dependent second question also failed. The application under section 256(2) for reference was therefore rejected, as no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. en-us Thu, 24 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:08:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28313 Circumstantial evidence was held sufficient to support the Tribunal's finding that the assessee surrendered the amount at the persuasion of the Income-tax Officer. On that basis, the proposed challenge to cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) did not raise a referable question of law. Because the first proposed question was not referable, the dependent second question also failed. The application under section 256(2) for reference was therefore rejected, as no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28313