TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. For the assessment year 1987-88, the assessee filed its return and declared an income of ₹ 44,080. Subsequently, a survey was conducted at the business premises of the assessee. A revised return was filed by the assessee on 29-9-1988, declaring a total income of ₹ 1,89,580. On 23-1-1989, the assessment was compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stified in law in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) ₹ 70,000 duly sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) without appreciating the fact that the filing of revised return itself as a result of survey on assessee's premises which is tantamount to admission of concealment on the part of the assessee ? 5. The learned counsels for the parties have been heard. 6. Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he later dates. The assessing officer mentions in the order that assessee-firm voluntarily disclosed peak amount of ₹ 1,45,500 for want of proof under section 69/69A/69B of the Act. Assessing officer did not specify any particular section to which this addition was made. Even if it is construed to be a case of deemed addition, the onus lies on the revenue to prove the fact of concealment. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Karnataka High Court in V. Narashima Prasad's case (supra), as also the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal's case (supra) fully cover the present controversy. 10. Resultantly, we find that no question of law arises, which may require an expression of opinion by this court. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. - - Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
