TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (6) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owed an earlier decision rendered in Jogibhai Mangalbhai v. ITO, decided on October 18, 1975, and further that the substantive points involved in this reference are already covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Suleman Abdul Sattar [1983] 139 ITR 8, and insisted that the matter should be heard and disposed of by this Bench. Since both counsel wanted this Bench to take up the matter for hearing as the matter was covered by an earlier decision of this court, it has been taken up for hearing. The assessee had filed a return for the assessment year 1970-71 declaring the total income as Rs. 4,577. In Part IV of the said return, the assessee had claimed a total amount of Rs. 1,03,966 as cross-word puzzle prize of a casual nature. By ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulent manner with the assessee who, by camouflage, concealed the income as a prize. He held that this was a case covered by the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The matter was carried to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, against the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the contentions raised by the parties were identical with those raised in Jogibhai Mangalbhai v. ITO decided by the Tribunal on October 18, 1975. It was agreed by the parties before the Tribunal that since the matter was covered by jogibhai's case rendered by the Tribunal earlier, the penalty levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner shall have to be cancelled and, accordingly, the Tribunal n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Suleman Abdul Sattar [1983] 139 ITR 8 (to which my esteemed brother was a party) and the facts on which that reference arose were more or less identical with the facts of the present case. In that case also, from the documents and materials seized during the search and the statements recorded in connection with the crossword competition during the course of investigation, it was discovered that the crossword puzzle was conducted only with a view to lend colour of legitimate source to unaccounted money and convert it into white money. The assessee in that case had disclosed sum of money in Part IV of the return as prize money won in a crossword competition which disclosure was factually false s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which declaration was found to be false. The proceedings initiated under section 271 (1 ) (c) of the Act resulted in a penalty, but, the Appellate Tribunal, following its decision in the case of Jogibhai Mangalbhai, cancelled the penalty on the assessee. Answering the questions referred for opinion in the negative, it was held that the Tribunal was not right in holding that, on account of the disclosure made by the assessee in Part IV of the return, he could not be said to have concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereon and that, consequently, levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (c) was not justified. In CIT v. Shri Imtiaz U. Digmar [1987] 163 ITR 229 again the said question had arisen before this High Court and was....