9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (11) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relating to the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee-HUF-constructed house at Dhanbad. According to the account books of the assessee, the cost of construction of this house was amounted to Rs. 86,498. However, the approved valuer assessed the cost of construction at Rs. 1,04,000. The Income-tax Officer referred the matter to the departmental valuer who estimated the cost of construction at Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds, the tribunal sustained the addition of Rs. 17,502 to the income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources. 3. By his order dated 21st June, 1975, the Inspecting Assistant commissioner, Ranchi, levied a penalty of Rs. 17,502 on the assessee under s. 271(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with reference to the aforesaid addition of Rs. 17,502. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the cost of construction, according to its account books, amounted to Rs. 86,498 and that its account books had been, correctly and regularly maintained. The Income-tax Officer rejected the book version of the assessee and estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 1,19,850. He did not point out any specific items of suppression in its account books. The mere fact that the approved valuer a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction and the rejection of the assessee's explanation for lower cost of construction did not necessarily imply that the assessee's accounts were totally false so as to justify the levy of penalty on him under s. 271 (1)(c). In these circumstances, we conclude that this being a case of estimate, no penalty is leviable on the assessee. The impugned order is, accordingly, cancelled. 5. In the result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
