COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SURESHCHANDRA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant (CIT, Bhopal), has filed this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the proposed question of law as extracted below, on rejection of the application registered as RA No. 126/Ind of 1992 for the asst. yr. 1985 -86, on 19th Dec., 1992, arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal on 15th May, 1992, in ITA No. 934/Ind of 1990, for our consideration and opinion. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting penalty under s. 271(1)(c) and holding that Expln. 1 to s. 271(1) is not at all attracted -

(2.) THE facts lie in a narrow compass. The assessee furnished the return for the asst. yr. 1985 -86, on 10th March, 1986, declaring his income as Rs. 13,850. The ITO then issued a letter on 16th July, 1986, to furnish details of the expenses claimed at Rs. 36,023 on truck. The assessee then furnished a revised return on 26th Feb., 1988, showing the income of Rs. 49,880 and surrendered the expenses claimed earlier. The assessment was completed on 16th Jan., 1989. Penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. The assessee filed objections. After consideration of the same, the ITO levied a penalty of Rs. 15,000. This order was confirmed by the CIT (A.). The assessee then filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal deleted the penalty on placing reliance on Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1987) 64 CTR (SC) 199 : (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC). The applicant filed an application under s. 256(1) of the Act which was rejected. Therefore, the applicant has filed this application proposing the aforesaid question.

(3.) WE have heard Shri D. D. Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Y. I. Mehta, learned counsel for the non -applicant.