G.S. Singhvi J.@mdashThis is an appeal by the Revenue for directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, (SMC) Delhi (hereinafter
described as ""the Tribunal""), for reference of the following questions of law :
(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the entire
penalty even when the assessee was not able to substantiate his explanation and he also failed to prove that all the facts material to the computation
of his total income were disclosed by him ?
(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the entire
penalty simply because the additions were made on estimate basis, in total disregard of the fact that such estimate was necessitated on account of
the assessee''s failure to maintain and produce primary record of his business ?
(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the entire
penalty even when Explanation 1(B) to Section 271(1)(c) was clearly applicable on the facts of this case which is integral part of the section as
held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Capital Cinema Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,
2. The assessee is engaged in the transport business. In response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ""the Act""),
he filed a return of income on July 3, 1986, declaring the income of Rs. 35,270. The assessing authority did not accept the return and assessed his
income at Rs. 2,55,630. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) assessed the income at Rs. 1,85,565. His order was upheld by the Tribunal.
Thereafter, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs. 1,04,405. The Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the order of penalty, but the Tribunal set aside the order of the assessing authority and the appellate order mainly on
the ground that the difference between the returned and the assessed income was due to difference of opinion about the estimated rates of income
and expenditure.
3. We have heard Shri R.P. Sawhney, who fairly stated that the question similar to question No. (iii) (noted hereinabove) was considered and
answered by this court against the Revenue in I. T. C. No. 14 of 1998 -- Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Prem Das, (decided on May 11,
1999), but argued that the other points would require consideration by the court.
4. We have carefully perused the record and are of the opinion that the present case is fully covered by the order dated May 11, 1999
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Prem Das, passed in I. T. C. No. 14 of 1998 and there is no valid ground to take a different view.
5. The submission of Shri Sawhney that other points raised in this appeal require consideration has no merit because alt the points sought to be
raised by the appellant are interrelated and in view of the decision of the main issue against the Revenue, the other points do not need further
elucidation.
6. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The detailed reasons recorded in the order dated May 11, 1999 (see Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Prem
Das, passed in I. T. C. No. 14 of 1998 shall be read as part of this order.
