2006 (10) TMI 121

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705 and CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9 would apply to this case which is before the amendment/introduction of Explanation 1 clause (B) to section 271(1)(c) ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, when a non-taxable amount has been offered for assessment even before issue of notice under section 148, due to the inability of the assessee to adduce proof, penalty could be levied by the Assessing Officer without recording any satisfaction and establishing mens rea that the amount offered is taxable income ? 3. Whether the Tribunal has not committed legal error in not adverting to the affidavit by the mother-in-law of the assessee that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellant, the assessee offered the sums as non-taxable income only with a view to purchase peace and avoid prolonged litigation and the Assessing Officer has not recorded a finding that the income so offered by the assessee is a taxable income and as the assessee neither concealed his income, nor furnished inaccurate particulars, the Appellate Tribunal was not correct in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer levying penalty. 7. The main points raised in the above questions are, (i) whether the assessee has deliberately concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars ; and (ii) whether the assessee has acted bona fide and honestly filed the revised returns with a view to purchase peace. 8. It is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under (page 104) : ' Learned counsel for the assessee then drew our attention to the judgment of this court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705. He submitted that the assessee had agreed to the additions to his income referred to hereinabove to buy peace and it did not follow therefrom that the amount that was agreed to be added was concealed income. That it did not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income is undoubtedly what was laid down by this court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 705 and that, therefore, the Revenue was required to prove the mens rea of a quasi-criminal offence. But it was because of the view taken in this and ....