TMI Blog1975 (9) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see filed a return of income of Rs. 51,185.82. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the account books and estimated the income at Rs. 1,03,404. On appeal, the estimate was reduced by Rs. 29,241 by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and further a reduction of Rs. 2,000 was allowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Since the returned income was less than 80% of the assessed inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was material on record to justify the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee was not guilty of gross or wilful neglect within the meaning of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " Under section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty is leviable upon an assessee, if he conceals his income or furnishes inaccurate particulars thereof. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification. There was no particular item of income which the assessee can be said to have omitted to include in its return. The Tribunal has held that the assessee had not concealed any stock of wood, as held by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, who had not properly understood the entries in the account books. Nevertheless, the Tribunal found that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal has also noticed that some minor items, like life insurance premium, income-tax and personal expenses had not been included by the assessee in its income. But these items were clearly set out in the profit and loss account and, therefore, his failure to add back these items were merely on account of oversight and not due to any wilful and gross neglect. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
