9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (6) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to disclose some capital gains earned by the assessee during the relevant accounting year. The ITO noticed that there was concealment of income and he accordingly issued a notice to the assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) to show cause as to why penalty could not be imposed. In response thereto the assessee attended in person and submitted that he did not know that capital gains formed part of the total i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, to our mind, there is no force therein. From the records of the department we found that at the time of assessment some property income was assessed and one of the properties had been sold during the accounting year which sale had been duly mentioned in the return. Thus it would follow that while the assessee may not have disclosed the capital gains, he did not make any effort to conceal the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon by the AAC, namely, V.L. Dutt, vs. CIT Madras 1976 CTR (Mad) 210 : (1976) 103 ITR 634 (Mad) related to a case of penalty u/s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act but the position in case of penalties u/s. 271(1)(c) appears to be rather still more favourable to the assessee. In CIT, West Bengal vs. Jagadish Prasad Agarwala (1980) 126 ITR 726 (Cal) a cash credit found in the books of the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was placed on a very recent judgement of the Calcutta High Court in V.P. Samtani vs. CIT West Bengal (1981) 23 CTR (Cal) 268 : (1983) 140 ITR 693 (Cal) but in that case the order levying the penalty was upheld because the finding of the Tribunal was that the explanation of the assessee regarding the source of a sum of Rs. 1,24,881 had been found to be false. The remaining question of levy of penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
