9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (2) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or had furnished inaccurate particulars thereof ? (2) If the answer to the above question is in the negative, whether the Income-tax Officer could, at the time of levying the penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Act, take into account also the additional evidence brought on record after the assessments were completed?" The assessee is a partnership firm which carried on business in the name of M/s. Baburam Chander Bhan. It had four partners: Baburam, Mahabir Prasad, Satya Deo and Shiv Charan Lal. It carried on the business of purchasing plain bangles and selling them after processing them. There was another firm in the name of Shanker Bangle Stores at Bangalore with four partners which included Baburam who was also a partner in the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order-sheet in which he agreed that the telegraphic transfers and demand drafts in the name of Satya Deo may be treated in his hands and the balance may be taxed in the firm's name at the net rate of ten per cent. The Income-tax Officer considering the material before him imposed the penalty. Penalty notices were issued in respect of the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59. The Income-tax Officer imposed penalties of Rs. 15,981 for the assessment year 1957-58 and Rs. 5,031 for 1958-59. The assessee filed appeals against the orders imposing penalty, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeals and confirmed the penalty. While the appeals were pending, the assessee addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Income-tax, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no evidence on record when the penalty proceedings were initiated to establish that the assessee-firm had concealed its income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars thereof ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer, at the time of levying the penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Act, was entitled for the purpose of levying penalty to take into account the evidence brought on record after the penalty proceedings were initiated in addition to the material already on the record before those proceedings were initiated ? " The Tribunal took into consideration only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee-firm, to the following effect : " We agree to the net rate of 10% and the telegraphic transfers and demand drafts in the name of Satya Deo to be treated in his hands and the balance may be taxed in the firm's case." The penalty proceedings were completed after this date, i.e., February 27, 1962. This evidence had come into existence during the assessment proceedings when they were at the appellate stage and before the penalty proceedings were finalised. We see no reason why the Income-tax Officer could not take this evidence into consideration while determining if the assessee was guilty of concealing particulars of his income or deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. Additional evidence is admissible in penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
