9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the revised return filed by the assessee, surrendering the amount of Rs. one lac which was due to totalling mistake committed by the Accountant, was a case of concealment of particular of income. 2. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the surrender of Rs. one lac by the assessee to be added to its income as extra profit by filing revised return was not bonafide and was not to purchase peace and avoid litigation. 3. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the department had discharged it's burden to prove concealment. 4. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished by the assessee, it was shown at Rs.3,28,280/-. The return was again revised on 23rd November, 1994 declaring the income of Rs.1,18,860/-. The assessee surrendered amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of inflation of purchases. Certain additions were made by the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment order. The penalty proceedings given rise to the present appeal was initiated on the ground that the assessee has inflated the purchases by Rs.1,00,000/- by showing wrong particulars and purchases relating to month of January, 1993. The only explanation offered by the assesee that it was due to mistake of accountant, was not accepted and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was levied as penalty by the penalty order dated 25th May, 1995. In appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, is essentially a finding of fact. It is a case where the assessee went on revising its income tax return one after another and when he was caught by the Assessing Officer, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was surrendered to be added in the income. Submission is that the subsequent decision of Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others versus Dharmendra Textiles Processors and others (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC), is the final and binding authority on the subject. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts are not much in dispute. It appears that the matter was heard by this Court earlier as per order-sheet dated 1st December, 2011. On that date, learned counsel for the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted by the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal which is last and final authority again considered the matter and in depth analysis, came to the conclusion that the conduct of assessee in surrendering Rs.1,00,000/- was not bonafide. The said finding is basically a finding of fact and is binding on us. An inference drawn by the Tribunal that the assessee's case was taken up for scrutiny and it filed revised return twice and was caught and pinpointed by the Assessing Officer that purchases figures relating to month of January, 1993 has been inflated by Rs.1,00,000/-. The assessee surrendered the same and the surrender is not bonafide. The inference drawn by the Tribunal on the above fact is plausible one and it cannot be said arbitrary o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1964. There being an amendment in the statute, relied upon decision is of little help to the assessee. It may be noted that in the aforesaid case, the order of penalty was set aside by the Tribunal but restored by the High Court. The Supreme Court relying its earlier pronouncement in Udhavdas Kewarram v. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 462, held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal performed a judicial function under the Income-tax Act and it was invested with authority to determine finally all questions of fact. The Tribunal was undoubtedly competent to disagree with the view of the First Appellate Authority; but in proceeding to do so, it had to act judicially, i.e., to consider all the evidence in favour of the department and against the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er only then Rs.1,00,000/- was surrendered, after availing multiple opportunities of filing revised returns. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of M/s Punjab Rice Mills (supra) is, therefore, distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied in the case on hand. No illegality or perversity in the finding of fact could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. No material was placed before us to take a different view of the matter. Any other point was not pressed. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal. The questions of law raised in the appeal are decided against the appellant by holding that it was a case where the explanation giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
