TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Judgment of Supreme Court against the order of High Court.
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 256(2), which is first of its kind, in a case where Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) was applied to make out a case of concealment. The judgment, though not rendered in an appeal against any substantive decision of the Gujarat High Court, may in a way prove to be of help in persuading the Tribunal/High court in reference applications filed by the Department to accept the same. Briefly the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accounts. For assessment year 1967-68 the assessee's authorised representative stated before the ITO that he had no objection to the adoption of a rate of 30% resulting in addition of Rs.1,30,000 to the returned income of Rs.34,131. It was, however, made clear by him that the addition was agreed to only with a view to avoid unnecessary litigation and that no adverse inference should be drawn othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and no adverse inference should be drawn in any other respect. The Tribunal held that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee and cancelled the penalty. According to the Tribunal the questions sought to be referred to the High Court were questions of fact. In its view whether there was any conscious or deliberate concealment by the assessee was a question of fact ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ground that the assessee could discharge initial onus, while the Department could not prove concealment with positive evidence. Thereafter, the reference application filed by the Department is also rejected on the ground that no question of law arise therefrom. It is expected that in cases involving identical circumstances as in the case of M/s Chandravilas Hotel, the Supreme Court judgment may ....