TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and the same forced the assessee to file the revised return – against assessee. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2003 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2012 - Ashok Bhushan, Prakash Krishna, JJ. (Delivered by Prakash Krishna,J) The present appeal has been filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act') and it relates to the assessment year 1993-94. The appeal arises out of penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. The following questions of law are involved in the appeal: "1. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 totall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and sales as Rs.31,93,81/-. An order under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act accepting the return was passed on 11th March, 1994. The assessment was re-opened subsequently by issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish month wise details of purchases and sales, both quantity wise and value wise. The details of purchase was filed on 19th July, 1994 declaring total purchases at Rs.29,00,778/-. On scrutiny, the Assessing Officer found that in the month of January, 1993 as per ledger, purchases were made to the tune of Rs.2,28,280/- while as per details 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/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... January, 1993. It was totalling mistake and nothing more than that. Strong reliance has been placed by him on Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. and another vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi, (1987) 168 ITR 705 and an unreported decision delivered in Income Tax Appeal No. 21 of 2003, M/s Punjab Rice Mills, Tanda, Badli Rampur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly another dated 11th October, 2011 by a Division Bench of this Court. In contra, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the department submits that the finding of the Tribunal that it was not a case of bonafide mistake, 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 caug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and sales, both quantity wise and value wise. The same was filed. On scrutiny of the account-books, the Assessing Officer detected that as per ledger, actual purchase was Rs.2,28,280/- but it was shown as of Rs.3,28,280/. The discrepancy in the two figures of purchase is of Rs.1,00,000/-. The department impounded the account-books of the assessee and recorded statement of one of his partners. The assessee made statement that the discrepancy in purchases figures of January. 1993 occurred due to fault on the part of the accountant. This plea which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, was accepted by the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal which is last and final authority again considered the matter and in depth analysis, came to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar month was detected by the Assessing Officer. Now, we take up the decision relied by the learned counsel for the assessee. Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. (supra) is a case where Section 271(1)(c) was up for consideration before amendment in the year 1964. The word "deliberate" was earlier before the words furnish inaccurate particulars of such income in clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act. The said word was deleted subsequently in the year 1964. The decision rendered by the Supreme Court should be understood in the above legal context as it existed prior to the amendment in the year 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 ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d draw a conclusion that the assessee had deliberately concealed the income. The assessee voluntarily surrendered Rs.2 lakhs when the A.O. did not accept certain entries in the books of accounts. There were 16 partners who were uneducated and belonged to Banjara Community and had no knowledge of the accounts. The decision was rendered in peculiar facts of that case. Here, it is not so that either the partners are uneducated or they lack of knowledge with regard to accounting. Here is a case where concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was surfaced by the Assessing Officer only then Rs.1,00,000/- was surrendered, after availing multiple opportunities of filing revised returns. The decision relied upon by the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
