9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (1) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner from out of pin-money, gifts and presents on ceremonial occasions as birth of children, marriages, Mundan, Janeu and other ceremonies etc. But the Petitioner is not in a position to establish by positive evidence the exact source." Accordingly, the assessee prayed that the assessments may be reopened so as to include the income offered by the assessee in the disclosure petition. The assessee also specifically prayed that no penal action may be taken against her. 3. The Commr., however, did not accept the disclosure petition on the ground that the assessee did not disclose fully her income from all sources and some amounts were still left which had been found out by the ITO. 4. Thereupon, the ITO initiated proceedings u/s 147(a) by issuance of notices u/s 148 and reopened the assessments. These reopened assessments were all made on the same day on 21st May, 1975. In response to the notice issued by the ITO the assessee filed revised returns showing the incomes which were disclosed in the disclosure petition. Certain other amounts were also added which were not originally taken into account at the original assessments. The chart as per Annexure 'A' below would indicate the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalties to Rs. 1,534, Rs. 2,188 Rs. 2,182 for Rs. 2,293 and Rs. 253 respectively for the five assessment years. 8. The Revenue is aggrieved by the reduction of penalties by the AAC and the assessee is aggrieved by the penalties retained by him. 9. The ld. Deptl. Rep. in support of the appeals filed by the Revenue contended that when once the assessee made a disclosure in her petition offering the amounts as her income, it is not necessary for the Revenue to lead any evidence to show that those amounts are concealed income for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c). He very strongly relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Banaras Chemical Factory vs. CIT reported in (1977) 108 ITR 96 (All). He assailed the reasoning of the AAC by pointing out that the concealment is with reference to the original returns and it has nothing to do with what has happened subsequently. When once there was non disclosure of income in the original returns, the mere fact that the assessee had come out voluntarily would not take her out of the purview of s.271 (1)(c). In reply the ld. counsel for the assessee very much relied on the order of the AAC and pointed out that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requested for the inclusion of the share income for the concerned assessment year from the two firms on the ground that by inadvertence they were not shown originally. In other words, the assessee's plea was that there was no non-disclosure by the assessee and it is only the assessee that came forward to divulge to the Department the share incomes from the two firms. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the same. The ld. Deptl. Rep. relying on the orders of the authorities below contended that the assessee had not been able to establish that any letter was sent as alleged by her. Therefore, the first point to be considered is whether the assessee brought to the notice of the ITO by her letter dated 2nd June, 1969 about the inclusion of the share incomes from the two firms. Before the AAC as well as before the ITO it was specifically pleaded that a letter was sent. The AAC in his order stated that no evidence was produced showing that the letter was actually sent. The AAC mentioned that no letter was available on the record of the ITO. The assessee's counsel stated that a receipt showing that the letter was in fact brought to the notice of AAC. But unfortunately the same was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment order for the year 1966-67 it transpires that the ITO mentioned as "Undetermined share from M/s. Bhola Nath Shambhu Nath taken subject to rectification u/s 154 nil". Similar is the position for other years. It is, therefore, contended by the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee did not conceal any particulars and, therefore no penalty is leviable. The ld. Deptl. Rep. relied on the orders of the authorities below. But we are inclined to agree with the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee. There is no concealment at all. The assessee disclosed the fact that she was a partner in the firm but her share income was not known. The ITO noticed this and accordingly assessed it at nil subject to rectification. We therefore, see no reason to uphold the findings of the authorities below that penalty is leviable, in respect of the share income from M/s Bhola Nath Shambhu Nath. 14. The next item relates to interest income from M/s. Beni Pd. Sidh Gopal & Co. II Account. This is only for the asst. yr. 1966-67. This was not disclosed in the original return nor was it disclosed in the disclosure petition nor in the revised return. Though the ld. counsel tried to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
