9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is in appeal..3. For the sake of completeness the facts are stated in greater detail as follows : The assessee filed its return on 28-4-1984 disclosing income of Rs. 2,74,510. The Income-tax Officer wrote to the assessee asking it to attend on 4-9-1984 and to file copies of accounts of certain creditors and again on 26-9-1984 the Income-tax Officer wrote to the assessee pointing out credits totalling to Rs. 3,30,000 and asking the assessee to furnish evidence to prove the source of the said credits from the concerned parties. The assessee replied on 6-10-1984 stating that the purchases from M/s P. K. Padmanabhan & Sons were genuine. The Income-tax Officer wrote another letter dated 27-10-1984 regarding the source of the above c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITO." The assessee filed a reply dated 12-2-1986 to the Income-tax Officer's notice under section 274 read with section 271, but it filed no reply to the Income-tax Officer's letter dated 18-2-1986. In this letter, the Income-tax Officer asked the assessee specifically to explain the credits in the partners' account in the subsequent assessment year and that Explanation 2 to section 271(1)(c) was applicable to the assessee's case. The CIT (Appeals) has confirmed this penalty, stating as follows : "Concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars has taken place in the return of income filed by the assessee on 28th April, 1984. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned representative that the revised return f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e capital account of the partners in the very next year. After the revised return for the earlier year was filed this sum was claimed as not belonging to the assessee. The question that arises is where this sum came from ? The obvious conclusion must be that the revised return whereby this sum was offered for taxation did not state the truth as claimed by the assessee. The clear inference is that it was the income of the assessee in the assessment year 1983-84 and that a false statement was made by the assessee to the department that this sum may be 'treated as the income of the assessee' only in order to buy peace. The audacity of the assessee is seen from its letter dated 21-12-1985 in which it had stated that the revised return was accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
