TMI Blog1978 (2) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtained substitutes the original return for all interests and purposes. So the sum of Rs. 18,000 was not concealed income. 2. The submission of the assessee's Counsel is that while arguing the aforesaid ground, he raised a legal objection before the Tribunal that the IAC was not competent to exercise the Jurisdiction in respect of the item of concealment of Rs. 18,000 inasmuch as the ITO who made the reference to the IAC, had not recorded his satisfaction about the concealment on the item of Rs. 18,000. He urges that unless the ITO records his satisfaction on item of Rs. 18,000 no penalty can be imposed by the IAC in respect of this item. He submits that his argument before the Tribunal was that before making a reference to the IAC, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artner of the assessee firm and the income arising out of those transactions constituted to be the personal income of the partners Shri Tarlochan Singh. As the ST authorities did not accept the contention of the assessee that the income arising out of the transactions having recorded in the Uchhanti Bahi belonged to the Partner Shri Trilochan Singh, the assessee contended that to avoid any future controversy, income of such transactions amounting to Rs. 16,500 had been disclosed in the revised return. It is contended that revised return was filed by the assessee before any concealment was deducted by the ITO, and therefore, there was no concealment of the item of Rs. 18,000. Apart from the argument advanced on merits, the counsel for the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the concealment of Rs. 18,000 was recorded by him in the assessment order. So the question arises whether concealment of Rs. 18,000 was referred to the IAC and if not so whether the IAC can assume the Jurisdiction to impose penalty on this item. Reliance has been placed by the assessee's Counsel on Niemal Textiles Finishing Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIR Delhi 1975 CTR (P H) which is the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court. In this case satisfaction about concealment was recorded on an item of Rs. 8,000 which was later on deleted in appeal. The IAC came to the conclusion after hearing the assessee that the escapement was with regard to Rs. 69,228, in addition to Rs. 8,000. He therefore, levied a penalty of Rs. 25,000. The assessee appealed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sider the question whether or not there was concealment of Rs. 18,000 as no satisfaction on the concealment of Rs. 18,000 had been recorded by the ITO at the time of assessment. In the light of the assessment order dt. 7th Feb., 1974 the IAC could have confined himself only to the concealment of Rs. 26,000 in respect of which satisfaction was recorded by the ITO. Thus the IAC travelled beyond his jurisdiction. For this reason, penalty sustained by the IAC on the item of Rs. 18,000 is not legal. We, therefore, cancel the penalty of Rs. 18,000 imposed by the IAC. As the assessee succeeds on legal objection, we do not propose to consider the argument advanced by the assessee's counsel on merits in respect of this item." Para 6 of the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
