TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 271(1)(c) in respect of the assessment year 1982-83. 2. We have heard the learned representatives on both sides at length. ITA 8997 and 8998/Bom/1988 Returns due to be filed on 31st July, 1982 and 1983 for the two assessment years were filed on 19th Oct., 1982 and 21st Oct., 1983, i.e., with a delay of 2 months in each case. The case of the assessee is that he is a partner in two firms, viz., M/s Shiv Hare Co. and Maharashtra Country Uquor Bar. The delay in filing the returns was attributed to the non-finalisation of accounts, panicularly of the second firm. It was submitted that Maharashtra Country Liquor Bar also filed their returns late. In support of this plea, photostat copy of the acknowledgment showing the filing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. In the circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty from two months to one month, which may be calculated accordingly, delay for the assessment year 1983-84 condoned, penalty deleted. ITA/8172/Bom/1988 5. On facts search was conducted on the business and residential premises of the assessee on 17-12-1982 and unexplained assets consisting of cash, jewellery, video, etc., and F.D. Rs. aggregating to ₹ 13,70,715 were found. Assessee had already filed a return on 19-10-1982 showing an income of ₹ 64,066. The assessee filed a revised return on 21-3-1984 showing an income of ₹ 3,63,065. He was assessed the next day on the same income, the figure rounded to ₹ 3,63,070. While the case of the Department i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,63,065 Rounded off to Rs. 3,63,070 The assessee was apprised of the proposed additions as referred to above. He has thereupon filed a revised return declaring total income of ₹ 3,63,065 on 21st March, 1984 including the above proposed additions as his income for this year. Assailing the imposition of penalty, the learned counsel for the assessee made various submissions. According to him, in the assessment order, cash and jewellery found at the time of the search do not find any place in the assessment for the assessment year 1982-83. These items were added during the assessment year 1983-84 as was evident from the assessment order for that year (available at pg. 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding, there was any concealment on the part of the assessee, he could not be visited with any penalty. The learned Departmental Representative has relied on the impugned order and submitted that penalty was imposable. 8. We have considered the matter carefully. The revised return for the assessment year 1982-83 was filed by the assessee on 21st March, 1984 and the assessment was completed on 22nd March, 1984 on the same figure which was shown by the assessee. As pointed out, the assessee has made detailed explanation in respect of the additions made during the revised return but barring a bald mention thereof the learned CIT(A) has not discussed them, much less holding, that they were unfounded. 9. We will now deal with certain cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of the different items constituting the impugned addition but, as pointed out by us earlier, the learned CIT(A) did not consider such explanation. To say the least, it can be said that from the facts, as have been enumerated above in the foregoing paragraphs, no finding that there was any suppression of facts much less concealment on the part of the assessee in respect of the disputed items of income which he reflected in his revised return, could even be deducted. As held by the Apex Court, merely agreeing to an addition with a view to buy peace and maintain cordial relations with the Department, an assessee does not render himself liable for being penalised under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
