2003 (12) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....abu J.- The question referred for our consideration, at the instance of the Revenue is: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that no penalty should be levied with reference to the concealed income seized in the form of jewellery and cash following the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mill....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....[1987] 168 ITR 705, held that no penalty was in the circumstances leviable. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the order of the Tribunal is not in accordance with law, as it has ignored the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision in the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC), where-in it was held that the la....