1990 (9) 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

....e Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court two questions as questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in this reference. They read thus : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty for concealment could not be levied under amended section 271(1)(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is, the income that was assessed originally. Reassessment was, however, completed on a total income of Rs. 63,000. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and referred the proceedings to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, who, after allowing the assessee an opportunity of being heard, imposed penalty of Rs. 40,000. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant Commissioner that the assessee had concealed his income, it directed that the quantum of penalty be reduced to the minimum penalty leviable under the law before its amendment in 1968. Counsel are agreed that the facts and rival contentions in this case are similar to those in the case of Chowgule and Co. (Hind) Private Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 182 ITR 189 (Bom). It was held by our court in that c....