Law:

Section:

Section 256, read with section 271(1)(c ), of the income-tax act, 1961-Reference-Question of law-Iac imposed penalty on assessee for concealment of income-Whether any question of law arose from tribunal's order cancelling penalty on ground that whereas assessee had discharged initial burden on him by producing evidence, department had failed to discharge onus shifted back to it by leading any evidence to rebut evidence produced by assessee-Held, no Facts The IAC levied penalty on the assessee for concealment of income. On appeal, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty by holding that whereas the assessee had produced material to discharge the initial burden on him, the department had not discharged the onus which had shifted back to it. The Tribunal also rejected the revenue's reference application under section 256(1). On application under section 256(2), the revenue contended that the Tribunal had ignored the provisions of theExplanation to section 271(1)(c), so that a question of law arose from its order. On reference : Held The question of concealment of income is primarily a question of fact, unless it is shown that in arriving at the said conclusion of fact one way or the other, the Tribunal had misapplied or misguided itself in regard to the legal principles bearing upon the given question of fact. From its orders, it was apparent that the Tribunal had kept in view the given Explanation and applied the legal principles correctly. It had held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden by adducing requisite material on the record and the onus had shifted to the department to lead evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the assessee, but that since the revenue led no such evidence, the burden on it remained undischarged, so that, on preponderance of probability, the issue had to be decided in the assessee's favour. Since the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant legal principles, no question of law arose from its order. Case review Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 652 (Punj. & Har.) (FB) and CWT v. Jagir Singh 1984] 19 Taxman 428(Punj. & Har.) applied. IT CASE NO. 134 OF 1977. Cases referred to Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT…

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