TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (10) TMI 484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titions relate to three different assessees but for the same assessment year. The question relates to the leviability of penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. The amount of penalty in each case is different. The following question of law has been sought to be referred in ITC No. 61 of 1991 (in the case of Shri Jaswant Rai for the assessment year 1984-85): "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(l)(c) amounting to ₹ 26,334 ?" 2. The amount of penalty in ITC No. 65 of 1991 (in the case of Raunaq Ram Om Parkash) is ₹ 1,28,296 and in ITC No. 66 of 1991 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on account of undisclosed and unaccounted income, one-third share income from Miri Ram Prem Chand (Rs. 35,297) and 15 per cent share income from Raunaq Ram Om Parkash (Rs. 29,890) were, thus, assessed. 5. In the case of the partnership, Raunaq Ram Om Parkash, return was filed for the assessment year 1984-85 showing the total income of the firm at ₹ 49,240. The accounting year of the firm ended on 31 -3-1984. Search and seizure operations had also taken place in the business premises of this firm on 28-7-1984 and certain papers were seized. Replies were filed by the assessee, explaining those papers. However, the assessee-firm agreed, during the course of the assessment proceedings, to the following additions: Rs (a) On account of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l addition : 1,05,000 7. Penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer, after finalising the assessments, upon the three assessees, as aforesaid, on the ground that they had concealed particulars of income and had agreed to the additions on that account. The assessees filed replies in the penalty proceedings, explaining that they had agreed to certain additions in order to earn peace of mind and to avoid litigation and on an undertaking that no penalty would be imposed. It was also stated in the reply that some income related to the earlier years but the assessee had agreed to being assessed in the assessment year 1984-85in order to avoid penalty proceedings and litigation. The Assessing Officer, however, did not agree and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contended that the finding given by the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal is a finding of fact and, in this light, no question of law arose from the controversy. 10. Shri R.P. Sawhney, the learned senior counsel for the department, has put forward the proposition that, where an assessee himself, during the course of assessment, filed a revised return and owned a disputed amount to be his income, the onus on the department stood discharged and, in that situation, penalty could be levied. In Mahavir Metal Works v. CIT [1973] 92 ITR 513, the assessee had owned a disputed amount to be his income and, since he failed to show in the penalty proceedings "that the admission made by him during the course of the assessment proceedings was wr....