TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order on the registration issue and then to frame a fresh assessment. Thereafter a fresh assessment was made on January 19, 1973, by the Income-tax Officer who assessed the total income at Rs. 1,66,660 and initiated action under section 271(1)(c) of the said Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner granted certain reliefs to the assessee by reducing the addition of Rs. 12,180 to the book results in Bombay-set account to Rs. 10,000, deleting an addition of Rs. 15,502 relating to certain borrowings and reducing the rate of gross profit from 2.5% to 2% in the Vapi-set account. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, rejecting the contentions raised by the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and it has not shown that the transactions in fact took place at the rates stated in the cash memos. It was found by the authorities that the assessee had tried to show that sales had taken place at particular rates mentioned in the cash memos and had failed to establish that these were genuine rates. It was also found that it was strange and surprising that each one of 6,570 sales was for an identical quantity of silver and for sums varying between Rs. 900 to Rs. 1,000. Moreover, there were sales only on 110 days in a year and, on the rest of the days, there were no sales whatsoever. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, on consideration of the entire evidence on record, found that the sales at the rates as shown in the cash memos were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6(1) of the Act: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was liable to penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanation thereto of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" It was contended on behalf of the assessee that, no satisfaction was recorded by the Income-tax Officer before the issuance of the notice under section 271 (1) (c) of the said Act. It was pointed out that, in the assessment order dated January 19, 1973, the provision of section 271(1)(a) was written and merely because the notice which was issued thereafter was under section 271(1)(c), it could not be said that the Income-tax Officer had arrived at the requisite satisfaction b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee in response to that notice before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner or even before the Tribunal that the Income-tax Officer had not arrived at his satisfaction, because clause (a) was typed instead of clause (c) while directing penalty proceedings to be initiated against the assessee. In our view the assessee cannot, at this stage, attempt to gain advantage over an obvious typing error if at all it was there in the original order. The initiation was obviously for penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) and that is how it had been understood by all concerned including the assessee until now. Merely because an obvious typing error had occurred in the order of the Income-tax Officer, it cannot be said that he may not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the Income-tax Officer had brought to the notice of the assessee by his letter dated December 28, 1972, discrepancies which had remained unexplained and several opportunities were given to the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transactions in question. The assessee did not, however, adduce any evidence to show as to how the peculiar and strange transactions had occurred. The material on record clearly indicates that the requisite satisfaction was arrived at by the Income-tax Officer before initiating the proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the said Act and, therefore, the above decisions cited on behalf of the assessee cannot come to its rescue. It wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and had concealed income exigible to tax. The Tribunal concurred with the findings of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on the relevant aspects and upheld his decision. Since the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has clearly applied his mind independently and given his own findings after evaluating the evidence, the decision in Khoday Eswarsa's case [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC) cannot help the assessee. Under the above circumstances, we find that the decision of the Tribunal, upholding the order of penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on the assessee is based on the material on record and is in accordance with law, calling for no interference by this court. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
