1988 (12) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4-65. It arises in consequence of the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,80,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act., 1961. The assessment had been made in the status of an unregistered firm. The Income-tax Officer stated, while making the assessment, that as in the previous years, the application for registration by the assessee was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eedings and/or hold that there are no extenuating circumstances. This very issue came up before the Tribunal in the assessee's case for the assessment years 1963-64, 1966-67 and 1967-68. On going through the orders of the Tribunal for these years, the Tribunal found that the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) could not be validly initiated. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the penalty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tive penalty. Before any penalty can be levied, the income has to be assessed as concealed income in the assessment of an assessee. Thereafter, in penalty proceedings, the competent authority has to probe into and decide whether there has been any concealment of income. But where there is a dispute as to whether such income allegedly concealed would be assessed in the hands of X or Y, unless the d....