2000 (9) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether, the Tribunal has erred in law in not taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances while adjudicating upon the aspect of 'mens rea' in penal proceedings under reference and, therefore, ultimate finding confirming the penalty is not sustainable? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was further justified in relying upon and applying the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Smt. Kochammu Amma [1980] 125 ITR 624 and whether the order of the Tribunal is reasonable?" The facts giving rise to the present reference, in a nutshell, are as under: The assessee is a partnership firm. For the assessment year....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osition of penalty, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeal was allowed and the amount of penalty was directed to be deleted. Being aggrieved by the order passed in appeal, the Revenue had approached the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal had ultimately allowed the appeal by restoring the original order passed on reassessment by the Assessing Officer. In the above set of circumstances, this reference has been made at the instance of the assessee and the court has to opine whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming penalty of Rs.8,936 imposed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have heard learned counsel. We have ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....firm was also a partner of the assessee-firm. Moreover, in our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in presuming that the assessee-firm would know about various accounts maintained by its depositors with the assessee and in the circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the assessee-firm did not know that Premraj Harisingh was one of the partners of the assessee-firm who had also deposited money with the assessee. Thus, after appreciating the facts of the case and looking to the returns which the assessee had filed in the previous years, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was an attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of its income and, therefore, the Tribunal had upheld the order o....