1995 (7) TMI 21

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellate Tribunal is right and had valid materials to hold that the amounts in respect of which concealment is established and in respect of which penalty could be imposed is only Rs. 6.14 lakhs in the aggregate ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right and had valid materials to hold that the penalty that has to be levied for each year would be only Rs. 80,000 which was the minimum penalty imposable under law and not Rs. 1,25,000 in each year ? " The assessee is a Hindu undivided family, consisting of Sri V. L. Balakrishna Naidu, as the karta, his wife and his married daughter. There was a larger Hindu undivided family consisting of Sri V. L. Balakrishna Naidu and his two brothers, Sri V. L. Venkatachalapathy and Sri V. L. Varadaraj....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itiated by the issue of notices dated November 28, 1981, under section 148 of the Income-tax Act in respect of which reassessments were completed on October 30, 1982. The assessee had accepted the reassessments and no appeals were filed. Thereafter, the assessee filed a petition for waiver of the total penalties of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rs. 1,25,000 for each assessment year) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for all the assessment years involved herein. This was rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax by order dated October 17, 1980, on the ground that the disclosure made by the assessee was not full and true and that the assessments made on higher amounts were the result of quantification of the concealed income made by the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ablished and in respect of which penalties under section 271(1)(c) could be imposed was only Rs. 6.44 lakhs in the aggregate for all the assessment years and that the penalty that had to be imposed for each assessment year would be only Rs. 80,000 as against the penalty of Rs. 1,25,000 imposed by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee also contended that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied on March 30, 1985, on the defunct Hindu undivided family was not valid in law. This contention was not accepted by the Tribunal on the ground that the said section would apply to both levy and collection of penalty and that since the date of partition was December 31, 1974, the levy and collection of penalty up to and inclusive of the assessment year....