9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (8) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should read thus: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,984 is justified in law?" The reference relates to the assessment year 1964-65. The relevant accounting year ended on 30th June, 1963. The assessee is a registered firm consisting of six partners carrying on business as provision merchants. It has a number of branches. The assessee returned an income of Rs. 30,965. The assessing authority did not accept that return. He added the following additions: Rs. (1) G.P. addition in head office ... 8,000 (2) G.P. addition in hardware ... 14, 000 (3) G.P. addition in Ganesh Trading ... 1,000 (4 Addition to jaggery account ... 3,000 Thus the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 59 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Before the Appellate Tribunal, the same authorised representative, Sri Ramaswamy, represented the assessee. The Tribunal without considering the question whether or not there was concealment of income so as to attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, substantially affirmed the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. This is what the Tribunal has stated in paragraph 3 of its order: "Having conceded in writing before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner that a levy of penalty was called for, and having invited the levy of the minimum penalty, it is not open to the assessee to urge before us that the levy of penalty was not justified. It is, however, pointed out that in the quantum appeal before the Appellate Assistant C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer and he has not adduced any additional grounds for coming to the conclusion that penalty was called for. He had stated that "the Income-tax Officer has discussed in detail as to why he is forced to make the above-mendoned additions and he is also satisfied that the assessee not only concealed a part of its income from jaggery business but also comes under the mischief of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) in its true sense". As already stated, the Tribunal has not applied its mind at all to the question in issue. A case of concealment of part of income of the assessee relating to jaggery business has no foundation since the appeal on merits has succeeded. Then the order has to rest entirely on the ground that the returned income i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
