9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been framed: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding regarding revised return dated October 15, 1976, having been filed before detection of discrepancy by the Income-tax Officer was perverse in view of such discrepancy having been pointed out by the Income-tax Officer on an earlier date, namely, September 10, 1976? (ii) Whether, on the facts and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March 10, 1975, showing the income Rs. 9,722. Subsequently, while examining the books of account of the firm on September 18, 1976, the Income-tax Officer found that although last purchase of "Masoor" amounting to Rs. 16,452 was on February 27, 1974, yet the assessee had shown a closing stock of Rs. 2,795 only. Therefore, it was pointed out by the Income-tax Officer that the income tax return fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. The Income-tax Officer rejected the explanation and held that he deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income by suppression of sale proceeds of "Masoor" purchased on February 27, 1974, and hence the penalty to the tune of Rs. 16,115 was imposed, and the Explanation added by the Finance Act, 1964, with effect from April 1, 1964, was held to be applicable. The said Explanation rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. However, the Tribunal while allowing the second appeal on the issue of penalty allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty so imposed. The Tribunal committed an error in taking a note of the date as January 14, 1977, for discrepancy in account, etc., for it was September 18, 1976. In reply the return has been filed on October 15, 1976. Therefore, it could not be held to be a case of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
