TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short "the Tribunal") passed in I.T.A. No. 180/Chandi/2004, dated June 25, 2004, for the assessment year 1987-88: "(i) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 50,000 under section 271(1)(c) when it was a case of bona fide mistake and nothing was concealed from the Revenue?" The brief f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t "the CIT(A)"). This order was confirmed by the Tribunal. Undisputed facts of the case are that the original income declared by the assessee was Rs. 99,840. Even in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the income declared was Rs. 1,50,070, whereas it was finally assessed at Rs. 2,00,300. Since the assessee concealed the particulars of his income, proceedings under section 271(1)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Tribunal, who rejected the same while recording the following findings: "5. We find that in this case there is no dispute regarding the fact that the assessee had shown less receipt during the course of original assessment. The plea that the assessee had no intention to conceal the income is only based on the submission that the same was erroneously left due to a mistake during accounti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of amount from the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, was not a bona fide mistake. On consideration of the entire material on record, all the authorities below came to the conclusion that showing of less receipt of amount by the assessee itself proved the concealment. Even otherwise in the case in hand, the income which was finally assessed is more than what was declared by the assessee i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
