2005 (3) TMI 35

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....961, and Explanation thereto and application of such provisions to the facts of the case, the penalty for concealment and/or gross or wilful neglect was leviable in the instant case?" Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: The reference relates to the assessment year 1978-79 in proceedings arisen out of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The applicant has been assessed to income-tax in the status of a firm. Its accounting period for the assessment year in question ended on March 31, 1978. The return for the aforesaid previous year was filed by the applicant originally declaring an income of Rs. 38,590 which was accepted under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... bona fide and, therefore, penalty was not imposable and set aside the penalty order. The Revenue feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has restored the penalty order. We have heard Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the Revenue. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is incorrect and not borne out from the record that the Income-tax Officer had detected the concealment and only thereafter the applicant had filed the revised return. He invited the attention of the court to the entry dated September 27,1978, in this behalf and submitted that having detected the concealment, the factum of concealment does not find mention at all....