TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (3) TMI 143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Lal and Sunder Dass Kimti Lal, the assessee made available to the ITO copies of their accounts, which, when sent by the ITO to the concerned parties for verification, the ITO gathered that the said parties did not have any account of the assessee Gulati Stores and thereafter the assessee vide letter dated 30-3-1979 surrendered the said amounts for additions. The ITO while making the said additions also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) mentioning in the end of the assessment order: "Assessed. Issue requisite documents along with penalty notices under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income and under section 273(b) for non-filing of estimate of advance tax. Also charge interest under section 217." Fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....favouring the assessee has to be relied upon and in that regard, he relied on the cases of CIT v. A.K. Das [1970] 77 ITR 31 (Cal.) and CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC). He also submitted that what is enough for assessment is not enough for levy of penalty and, therefore, no penalty was warranted in the instant case. He also relied on the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC) in that regard. 5. The learned senior departmental representative, Mr. R.K. Bali, on the other hand, besides relying on the orders of the two lower authorities relied on the cases of Shiv Narain Khanna (Punj. and Har.), Rahmat Development & Engg. Corpn. v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 602 (Cal.) and Kedar Nath Sanwal Dass v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the assessment order levied the penalty but he also gave a finding that no additional evidence was produced by the assessee. 7. Reliance of the learned counsel for the assessee in the cases of Lakhdhir Lalji and Padma Ram Bharali is misplaced because though in the course of assessment proceedings when penalty was initiated, the ITO mentioned only concealment of particulars but subsequently when the show-cause notice was issued, it contained both the limbs, viz., furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of particulars of income. Simply because the penalty levied was of Rs. 8,334, which was based on clerical working of tax evaded and which ought to have been Rs. 8,904 according to the working of the learned counsel for the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therefore, valid." Instant is a case in which abovesaid case is applicable on all fours. Then, on the aspect of issue 'what is enough for assessment is not enough for penalty', we have the two Punjab and Haryana High Court decisions in the cases of Shiv Narain Khanna and Kedar Nath Sanwal Dass. Instant is not a case where the ITO levied the penalty purely on evidence, finding or reasoning but he gave further opportunity, as observed by him in para 3 of his penalty order, which reads as under : "3. Against the arguments put forth by the assessee before the levy of penalty, I have carefully perused the assessment record and find that intensive enquiries have already been made regarding the bogus purchases entered into the books of account o....