1996 (10) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s justified in reducing the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) to Rs. 2,000, which is less than Rs. 45,988 being the minimum imposable for the assessment year 1965-66 ? 2. Whether, on the facts obtaining in this case and having regard to the provisions of the Pondicherry (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1964, the Appellate Tribunal was within its powers to reduce the penalty below the minimum prescribed, especially when such powers vested with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ?" The assessee, the late Sri Narayanaswami Pather, did not disclose income from investments in the name of Smt. Nagalakshmi Ammal, his wife and Sri Subramanian, his son. The original assessment for the assessment year 1965-66 was reopened and the following....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 16,868 relating to interest on deposit in the name of the minor son was includible only by virtue of section 64 being in the nature of deemed income and that concealment cannot be presumed in respect of this amount. It left only an amount of Rs. 29,300 representing the capital account in the name of the wife in the account book and the further amount of Rs. 16,698. The Tribunal proceeded to observe that Sri Pather was not without an explanation, inasmuch as he contended that the alleged credits were out of returns of earlier advances and he had no proof for such explanation. It was found that the assessee had admitted liability in respect of the assessment in a similar credit in his wife's name to the extent of Rs. 3,000 in the return it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t aside. We have heard learned standing counsel appearing for the Department and perused the records carefully. The fact remains that in reassessment for the assessment year 1965-66, the additions as stated hereinabove, were made to the extent of Rs. 230, plus Rs. 16,868, plus Rs. 29,300, plus Rs. 37,510. In pursuance of these additions, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner levied a penalty of Rs. 83,908 on the ground that the assessee had concealed his transactions done in the name of his wife and also concealed his minor son's income. The assessee failed to establish that the funds belonged to his wife. Therefore, it was considered that the abovesaid amounts belong to the assessee. In the quantum appeal, the Tribunal deleted the ad....