TMI Blog1995 (5) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn of income on 26-5-1984 declaring an income of Rs. 30,000. Inasmuch as the aforesaid return had been filed after the completion of the original assessment the same was regularised by issue of a notice under section 148. The assessee in fact stated in writing by means of communication dated 26-5-1984 that the return filed earlier be treated as one in compliance to the notice under section 148. 3. In the aforesaid return income had been shown from house property, business and interest aggregating Rs. 30,000. However, the said return was not supported by any documents and the Income-tax Officer in fact observed that the income returned did not represent the " correct income " of the assessee. A further fact noted by the Income-tax Officer was that no ledger had been maintained as none was available. The Assessing Officer subsequently referred to the order passed by him for assessment year 1980-81 and rejecting the various contentions raised on behalf of the assessee he proceeded to compute the taxable income at Rs. 64,690 as follows :--- " Capital as on 31-3-1982...... Rs. (as per duplicate cash book/ documents available). 1,90,970 Capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer in the course of the penalty proceedings, viz., the non-levy of penalty in a case where taxable income had been computed on " estimated basis ". The other submission was to the effect that there had been no concealment of income and the return filed at Rs. 30,000 had come to be finally assessed at Rs. 32,790 as result of the order passed by the first appellate authority in the quantum appeal. It is not a disputed fact before us that the said order of the first appellate authority became final as no second appeal was filed to the Tribunal by either of the parties. 7. The submissions made on behalf of the assessee found favour with the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who proceeded to cancel the penalty on the ground that provisions of section 271(1)(c) were not attracted in a case where income was computed on an " estimate basis ". In the same order the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) also cancelled the penalty for assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. 8. Before we proceed further, we find it necessary to mention that the Revenue's appeals for assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 came to be heard by the Tribunal and disposed of earlier, i.e., on 8-9-1993 by a Division Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nth ; (v) Suppression of sales also emerged from the seized material ; and (vi) That the assessee had at no stage challenged that the diary was not in his own handwriting and further the difference between the income assessed earlier, viz., Rs. 7,250 and the income which was finally assessed pursuant to the second return filed after issue of notice under section 148 was more than four times, i.e., Rs. 32,700. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions the learned Departmental Representative urged that the penalty order passed by the Income-tax Officer be restored especially when there were various reported judgments which took the view that penalty under section 271(1)(c) could also be levied in a case where income had been computed on " estimated basis ". He cited for the aforesaid proposition a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri v. Union of India [1993] 204 ITR 368 and that of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. K. P. Sampath Reddy [1992] 197 ITR 232. The learned Departmental Representative also placed on record a list of certain other reported decisions and which we have taken into account while disposing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not at an applicable to the facts of the assessee's case. 14. We may at this stage refer to two other aspects of the present appeal and the first of these is the objection regarding filing of certain documents by the learned Departmental Representative and which, according to him, were copies of the material which were already on the record. The learned counsel raised an objection to the Departmental Representative doing so on the ground that he could not do so at this late stage. We have proceeded to reject the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent as the material in question cannot be categorised as " new material " or " additional evidence " as it is something which is already available on the record and copies have been furnished to assist the Court in arriving at a decision. The second aspect which has engaged our attention is the order of the Tribunal in respect of assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 and the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the fact in these two assessment years are at par with the facts in assessment year 1982-83 which is presently in appeal. The learned Departmental Representative in his reply referred to para 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f allowed by the DC (Appeals) was not a reduction on " estimated basis " as was the case of the assessee before the first appellate authority in the penalty appeal and which is also the argument now canvassed before us. The further fact which is required to be referred to is that the addition on account of household expenses at Rs. 8,500 made by the Assessing Officer was not challenged before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as the relevant ground was withdrawn. 16. In the absence of the ledger as also other relevant material and the inability on the part of the assessee to come up with cogent and relevant evidence to support his case and the second return of income not being supported by any document, the Assessing Officer had no option, but to arrive at the taxable income on a reasonable and rationale as basis and this is what he did by working out the capital as on the first and last day of the previous year and treating the balance as the assessee's income. The further addition, as already stated, was on account of household expenses which the assessee did not challenge in appeal. It is quite apparent that the complete picture emerged only after the raid and the assessee him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
