1982 (4) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reference under s. 66(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, as directed by this court, the following question has been referred to us. In the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in drawing the inference that no concealment was established in respect of the sum of Rs. 1,73,678 and that no penalty was justified ? It appears that this reference relates to the assessment o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t this was restored by the Tribunal in second appeal. Holding that the assessee had deliberately inflated the purchases of raw jute at Bhairab Agency in order to reduce its tax liability and that the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, the ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 70,000 under s. 28(1)(c) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e for the purpose of purchases than the actual amount that the assessee had to incur. The Tribunal held that although there was justification in making an addition in the assessment, it could not be held, as a matter of fact, that the assessee concealed the particulars of its income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that no co....