LAWS(GJH)-1992-8-31

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. ABDULGAFUR AHMED WAGMAR

Decided On August 11, 1992
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant
V/S
Abdulgafur Ahmed Wagmar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income -tax Act, 1961, by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal :

(2.) A few background facts leading to these proceedings may be noticed at the outset. The respondent -assessee is an individual. The relevant assessment year is 1969 -70. The respondent filed a return of income relevant to the assessment year disclosing a total income of Rs. 2,400. In Part IV of the return, an amount of Rs. 1,65,149 was shown to have been received from Kasti Harifai. The Income -tax Officer, however, did not accept the genuineness of the prize money received and added the same in the income of the assessee. The Income -tax Officer also added an amount of Rs. 16,515 being ten per cent. commission claimed to have been paid for conversion. This assessment was made under section 144 of the Act. The Income -tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 274(2) of the Act.

(3.) THE respondent -assessee challenged the order of penalty in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, having considered the rival submissions, found that the question regarding penalty was considered the rival submissions, found that the question regarding penalty was considered in I. T. A. No. 373/(Ahd.) of 1974 -75, decided on October 18, 1975. The Tribunal found that the levy of penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not justified as disclosure in Part IV of the return was sufficient disclosure. The Tribunal, therefore, deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanation thereto both in respect of the addition of prize money as also the addition of commission payment. From the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the aforesaid four questions have been referred for our opinion as noted earlier.