TMI Blog1956 (8) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner for concealment of the particulars of his income in the returns which he submitted for the respective years. The assessment for the year 1943-44 with which C.M.P. 3138 of 1956 is concerned was completed on 14th February, 1945. Subsequent to the filing of the return the petitioner examined himself before the Income-tax Officer on 5th January, 1944, and in the course of his examination he conceded that certain items of credit which were shown as if the moneys belonged to outsiders were really his own moneys and the profits of the business. Similarly in regard to 1944-45 the assessment of which was completed on 30th November, 1945, the assessee was examined before the Officer on 26th November, 1945, and he conceded that the return or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the assessee was made after the Income-tax Officer had come to know of the facts, and that in the circumstances he was forced to admit these facts. Even apart from this, we consider that section 28(1)(c) would be attracted if there had been a deliberate concealment of particulars in any return, and in the circumstances of the present case it is clear that the original return did not disclose considerable portions of the income and the finding is that the concealment was deliberate. Further the return for 1944-45 was filed after the petitioner was examined before the Income-tax Officer on 5th January, 1944, and there can therefore be no doubt that dishonest concealment is fully established for the second year. In these circumstances, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... your income or deliberately furnished inadequate particulars of such income under section 28(1)(c), I hereby call upon you to show cause in writing or in person at my office-why a penalty under section 28 should not be imposed. It was this notice which it was stated was not in conformity with the requirements of section 28(3). Section 28(3) requires that the party against whom the penalty is going to be imposed should before such imposition (a) be heard or (b) be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. What the notice issued to the petitioner stated was that he might either show cause in writing or appear in person. The learned Chief Justice who delivered the judgment of the Orissa High Court has categorically stated that a no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee to appear in person, but further affords him also an option to send in his representations in writing, it cannot be said that the notice does not afford him an opportunity of being heard. The grant of a further option to the assessee to send in his written explanation does not, in our opinion, involve the negation of the option to be heard in person. The sub-section only requires that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard; and so long as this is granted it does not matter what other alternatives are afforded to the assessee in addition. Assuming that the correct form of the notice were that it should convey merely an intimation to the assessee only to appear in person, and the assessee chooses not to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
