9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was completed on a total income of Rs.10,21,647/-. The Assessing Officer had made additions/disallowances towards bottling charges, suppression of sales etc., In first appeal, the additions were partially modified. 3. It was in the above scenario that penalty was levied on the assessee. A penalty of Rs.2,69,974/- has been levied in this case. The matter came up to the Tribunal. The ITAT, Bangalore 'A' Bench through its order dated.07.02.2005 deleted the penalty in ITA.109/Bang/2002. The Revenue got aggrieved and the order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka u/s.260A of the IT Act, 1961. The Hon'ble High Court observed that the penalty was deleted by the Tribunal mainly relying on the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee through revised returns or not. The question is whether the additional income offered through the revised returns would amount to concealment of income or not. Whether in the original return or in the revised return the point to be looked into is whether the additional income was offered by the assessee as an attempted concealment was detected by the assessing authority and/or the particulars furnished by the assessee were found to be false. 6. The facts of the present case stand on their own legs despite the fact that the Tribunal had relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd., (1987) 168 ITR 705. This is clear from the elements which contributed to the allegation of concea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t possible for the assessee to lead any more evidence in support of its contentions. Therefore, what we have to see is whether the explanations offered by the assessee are plausible and satisfy the test of normal human reasoning. 7. The Explanation to Section 271 in fact provides the rules of evidence in certain circumstances under which the Assessing Officer may treat the additions as concealment. This leeway is available to the assessing authority when the explanations offered by the assessee are found not acceptable or the assesses are not able to substantiate their explanations. Therefore, the newly inserted Explanation is in fact a rule of evidence. The said rule applies only to such cases where the facts are commensurate. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
