- (1.) SEN , J.: This is reference under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law to this Court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any evidence or material before the Tribunal to hold that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee within the meaning of Explanation to S. 271 (1)(c) of the Act and whether such finding is otherwise unreasonable or perverse? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, and Explanation thereto r/w S. 68, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the order of penalty?" The assessment year involved is 1964-65 for which the year of account is 31st March, 1964.
(2.) THE first question does not arise in view of the order of the Tribunal. The observation as challenged in the question does not appear in the order of the Tribunal. We decline to answer the first question. So far as the second question is concerned, the Tribunal has considered all aspects of the case which were brought on record. The finding of the Tribunal is that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee. In view of that finding the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
(3.) THERE will be no order as to costs.;