9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (5) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income of Rs. 5,35,708. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) and issued a show cause notice to the assessee. The assessee filed a written reply stating that the return was filed voluntarily and before the issue of a notice under s. 139/148. In respect of interest added on amount due form Punjab State Co-operative Marketing Federation, Chandigarh it was contended that the said addition could not form the basis for levy of any penalty under s. 271(1)(c) inasmuch as neither had any amount been received and nor had any sum accrued to the assessee. The ITO accepted the explanation in so far as the interest income was concerned but rejected the same in respect of the income pertaining to goods supplied to the State Federatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee for the assessment of any income in this regard and nor in any earlier year any finding had been given by the ITO that any income was assessable in asst. yr. 1983-84. 6. That actually no income in respect of the said transaction was assessable in the hands of the assessee at all and it was only with a view to purchase peace that the said income had been declared in the revised return filed voluntarily for the asst. yr. 1983-84. 7. That the understanding at that time between the assessee and the Department was that no penalty would be levied but despite the same the assessee had been penalised. 8. That the assessee had not concealed anything and nor had he furnished any inaccurate particulars since the assessee had been refl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e course of the assessment proceedings for the said year as per his note dt.24th March, 1983the appellant had dully declared the facts relating to the profits of Rs. 1,25,556 arising to the appellant and as appearing in the balance sheet on sale of rice to Markefed and according to which the profit was not shown as it had not accrued due to disputes for payment with Markfed. The entries in the balance sheet in respect of the said transaction admittedly appeared in asst. yrs. 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 also. Since the appellant had already intimated the position in respect of the profit arising form this transaction during the course of assessment proceedings for asst. yr. 1982-83 it could not be said that the same was discovered only thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r stated that no payment had been received in terms of the contract and it could not be said that anything had accrued to the assessee. The further submission was that the amount in any case did not pertain to asst. yr. 1983-84 since the transaction related to asst. yr. 1982-83 but its inclusion in asst. yr. 1983-84 came about on the persuasion of the ITO to which the assessee agreed and this was subsequently followed by to wised return and a notice under s. 148 to regularise the said return. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the learned counsel contended that this was not a case in which penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) could be involved and penalty levied. He made an impassioned plea for the confirmation of the order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
