TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nspecting Assistant Commissioner ?" Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed a return of its total income for the said year on January 7, 1965, declaring an assessable income of Rs. 1,07,703. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment of the assessee for the said year on a total income of Rs. 2,42,371. In making the said assessment, the Income-tax Officer made, inter alia, an addition of Rs. 60,000 to the business income by rejecting the trading results of Vizianagaram and Barbin Branches. The Income-tax Officer found that the gross profit shown in respect of these two branches were very low and details of various expenses were not available. The books relating to raising operations were not produced and particulars rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said Act. The Official Receiver, High Court, filed an appeal against the said order to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Nobody appeared before the Tribunal on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Anwar Ali's case [1970] 76 ITR 696, the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Sankarsons and Co. [1972] 85 ITR 627, and that of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Addl. CIT v. Karnail Singh V. Kaleran [1974] 94 ITR 505, cancelled the penalty levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. At the hearing before us, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue drew our attention to the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT [1982] 135 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 271(1)(c) was clearly applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The burden was on the assessee to show that the difference between the returned income and the assessed income did not arise from any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on its part. It is unfortunate that nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee in this case either before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner or before the Tribunal. We, therefore, decline to answer the question and remand this matter to the Tribunal with a direction that the Tribunal should rehear the appeal after serving another notice upon the Official Receiver and/ or the assessee, as the case may be. The Tribunal will decide this appeal afresh in the light of the principles laid down b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
