TMI Blog1977 (4) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 47,510. In computing the loss, the assessee had claimed amortisation allowance on total cost of the picture shown at Rs. 1,65,591. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on an income of Rs. 25,230 after disallowing a sum of Rs. 48,094 in determining the cost of the picture and allowing amortisation @ 33%. On appeal, the AAC allowed a further sum of Rs. 22,825 in determining the cost of the picture and applied amortization @ 60% to determine the loss of Rs. 6,628. There was no further appeal. In the mean-while the Income-tax-Officer had by his assessment order initiated proceedings for the imposition of penalty under s. 271 (1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and referred the matter to the Inspecting Assista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... barred by limitation. It was next contented that the proceeding having been initiated for furnishing inaccurate particular penalty could not be validly imposed for concealment of income and reliance was placed on the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Padma Ram Bharali(4) as well as the Gujarat High Court in the case of Lakhhir Lal ji(5). It was further pointed out that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to impose the penalty because of the amendment of s. 275 and in that connection reliance was placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Continental Commercial Corporation(6) and the Orissa High Court in the case of Dhadi Sahu(7). The next contention of the assessee was that sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch claims were deliberate and the assessee must be given the benefit of the possibility that there could be mistakes in calculation. It was submitted that taking all these circumstances into consideration this was not a case in which penalty should be imposed. 4. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the revenue that there was nothing to prevent the same Officer from dealing with the penalty matter and in fact the disposal of the assessment appeal by him would even make it easier to appreciate the contentions of the assessee. It was submitted that the limitation prescribed in the Act was only for the passing of the order and any delay in the service of the order will not make it invalid. It was further submitted that the impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the determination of a figure of loss higher than that claimed by the assessee. On this point, since it is a matter of dispute, it cannot be said that there was any concealment or false claim by the assessee. The other part of the assessment is the determination of the cost of the picture. Here the point of the assessee is that an amount which was accrued as refund long after the assessment year had been taken into account. Even if we ignore that amount which was accrued as refund long after the assessment year has been taken into account. Even if we ignore that amount we have the finding of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner that certain double claims were made in computing the cost. However, even that finding does not go against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
