1991 (4) TMI 78

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the two years. For the latter year, he had also declared share of profit from the Kallatra Constructions, Rs. 5,982. After the assessments were completed, proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) were initiated on the ground that the assessee had concealed income for both the years. The thrust of the charge was in relation to the income from contract works for the two years and the share of profit from Kallatra Constructions during the latter year. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 30,500 respectively, for the two years. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that there was no concealment of income for the year 1966-67 and cancelled the penalty in its entirety. For the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing that there was concealment of income relating to the Kallatra Constructions which had become final as the assessee had not sought any reference in relation to that. On the quantum of penalty, the Tribunal directed that the penalty shall be the minimum leviable. The petitioner sought reference of various questions of law as arising out of the order of the Tribunal. But the Tribunal refused reference on the ground that they were questions of fact not liable to be referred. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even on the principles and guidelines laid down by this court in the earlier judgment, in relation to the filing of the revised return, no penalty was liable to be imposed on the petitioner for the two years in question. He ....