RAJESH BINDAL, J. - (1.) FOLLOWING questions of law have been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh 77, in respect of the asst. yr. 1970 -71 : "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is any legal or admissible evidence on the record to support the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee had disclosed the source along with an estimated income therefrom in so called earlier return whereas admittedly there was no mention of it in the duplicate return subsequently filed by it ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that penalty under s. 271(1) was not exigible -
(2.) THE dispute in the present case pertains to levy of penalty imposed upon the assessee under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The penalty was ultimately set aside by the Tribunal by recording a finding that the assessee had neither concealed the income nor furnished inaccurate particulars thereof so as to bring it within the ambit of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the imposition of penalty.
(3.) COUNSEL for the Revenue could not point out any material on record, which could enable this Court to hold that the findings recorded by the Tribunal, to the effect that the assessee had neither concealed the income nor furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, are perverse. The Inspecting Asstt. CIT was found to have levied the penalty without any basis. Merely if a second view is possible on the facts found by the Tribunal, the Tribunal having taking a particular view, this Court does not find the same to be perverse or impossible. Accordingly, the questions referred are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.;