TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (1) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestion of law : " Whether, on the, facts and in the circumstances of the case, the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that no penalty is exigible is sound in law ? " The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in grain commission agency, speculation and business on its own account. It filed return of the income for 1958-59 showing an income of Rs. 30,095. The Income-tax Officer in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was the general practice to declare 5 per cent. excess grain. The explanation was not accepted. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner restricted the addition to Rs. 25,406(?). It was farther reduced bythe Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to Rs. 16,736. The Tribunal accepted the explanation of the assessee in regard to the discrepancies relating to barley and bijhara but not those with rega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee had concealed the particulars of his income so as to make him liable to penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. It came to the conclusion that as there was no positive evidence to bring home the default to the assessee, the penalty could not be levied. The contention of learned counsel for the Commissioner is that in the circumstances of the case the certificate issue....