Chinnappa Reddy, Actg. C.J.
1. These two applications (ITC No. 1 of 1974 and ITC No. 2 of 1974) arise out of the assessment proceedings and the consequent penalty proceedings of M/s. Shiv Narain Khanna. The authoritiesconstituted under the Income-tax Act found that certain transactions were bogus. The transactions were with a certain firm of which the assessee's wife and daughters-in-law were the partners. The nature of the transactions was that goods said to have been purchased from the other firm were immediately resold to the same firm for half the price. All the authorities found that the transactions were false. Assessment and penalty were levied on that basis. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that there was no material justifying the levy of penalty, whatever might be said about the assessment. We do not agree with the learned counsel. The facts of the case would stare any one in the face. The learned counsel for the assessee appears to be labouring under the impression that some additional material should always be available for the levy of penalty in addition to the material on which the assessment was based. There is no basis for this assumption. The very same material can form the basis for the assessment and penalty, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case we are satisfied that there was abundant evidence justifying the levy of penalty.
2. Both the applications are, therefore, dismissed with costs.