Law:

Section:

Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Reference - Question of fact - Whether the question as to whether amount of penalty levied by tribunal was justified in view of material on record or because assessee had filed revised return prior to service of notice under section 148 was question of law - Held, no Facts The assessee concealed part of his income which was brought to tax subsequently by way of reassessment under section 147. Penalty for concealment was also imposed on the assessee under section 271 (1)( c) which was upheld by the AAC and the Tribunal with reduced quantum. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's application for reference under section 256(1). On application under section 256(2): Held The question as to whether the amount of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was or was not justified in view of the evidence on record or in view of the fact that the assessee had filed revised returns prior to the service of notice under section 148 could not be held to be a question of law. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in rejecting the assessee's prayer in that behalf. MISC. CIVIL CASE NO. 136 OF 1982. Chaphekar for the Applicant. R.C. Mukati for the Respondent. Order Sohani, J. - This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows: For the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the assessee filed return but did not disclose his income from contract receipts. After framing assessment, the ITO received information regarding the amount of income received by the assessee from the public works department. The ITO thereupon issued notices under section 147(b)/148 of the Act for escaped assessment. The assessee filed revised returns and the ITO completed reassessment and treated the nondisclosure of contract receipts in the original returns as concealed income and initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by the ITO imposing penalty, the assessee preferred appeals to the AAC. The AAC reduced the amount of penalty. On further appeal, the Tribunal…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492