TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (3) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty vitiated and/or liable to be set aside ?" The assessment year involved is the assessment year 1968-69 for which the previous year ended on October 31, 1967. The facts of the case found by the Tribunal have been stated as under : The assessee filed his return on June 3, 1968, declaring a total income of Rs. 23,576. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Incometax Officer enquired of the assessee the nature and source of Rs. 25,000 being a loan alleged to have been taken by the assessee in the name of Eastern Industries Corporation. The Income-tax Officer treated Rs. 25,000 as the assessee's income from business in his order of March 14, 1972, the relevant portion of which reads as under : "Sri N. C. Khasnabia, Advocate,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions of High Courts mentioned in para 5 of the order of the Tribunal under reference. The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions of the parties, upheld the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposing penalty of Rs. 32,500 under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. So far as the first question is concerned, nothing has been shown to suggest that the Tribunal had failed to deal with any contention raised by the applicant. It has not been shown, as to how it can be said that no proper opportunity of being heard was given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. On the contrary, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has recorded in his order that a notice of hearing was given. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee. But ....