2001 (7) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"): "(1) Whether, on the facts and in-the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty was exigible in this case? (2) When the learned Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had imposed penalty under the substantive provisions of section 271(1)(c) and had not at....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....1,57,514. It included addition of Rs.49,985 on the ground that the commission claimed to have been paid to sub-agents was not substantiated. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (in short, "the AAC") in appeal reduced the total income by Rs.6,000 and out of this deduction of Rs.5,000 related to the commission paid to one person, Ravinder Malik. The Tribunal by its order in 1. T. A. No. 4392 of 19....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter was carried in appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee. Having noted all the factual aspects, the Tribunal came to hold that the commission claimed to have been paid to J. Mohan was not justified and the claim was untenable. With regard to the other sub-agents, the Tribunal took the view that in law the assessee could not have been said to have proved that the claim for expenditure did not ....