9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar Ajay Kumar, and M/s Subash Chand Yashpal. This was accepted under s. 143(1) of the IT Act on 3rd July, 1975. After the assessment was completed under s. 143(1) the assessee filed another return suo motu declaring the share income from the two firms as shown in the first return, In addition she also declared interest of Rs. 4,802 from M/s Raj Rishi Chemical Industries. On this return assessment was made under s. 143(1) on 30th Sept., 1977. The ITO also initiated penalty proceedings while completing the assessment and imposed penalty of Rs. 4,802 with reference to the interest income of Rs. 4,802 not shown in the first return. This penalty was, however, cancelled by the AAC, Ambala Range, Ambala vide his order dt. 27th Dec., 1982 in Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ITO, the assessee went in appeal before the AAC. The AAC not only confirmed the penalty of Rs. 1,768 but also enhanced the same by a further sum of Rs. 4,802. According to him, the penalty was to be levied on account of difference between the first return and the third return in response to notice under s. 148. He held that in the first return the assessee had not shown interest income of Rs. 4,802 also and, therefore, the penalty to be levied with regard to the following three items of concealed income, (i) Rs. 4, 802: Interest income from M/s Raj Rishi Chemical Industries. (ii) Rs. 388: Interest Income from M/s Ramditta Mal Om Prakash, and (iii) Rs. 1,380: Unexplained cash credit. The AAC accordingly raised the penalty to Rs. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the AAC by the Revenue. That order therefore, has become final. The AAC therefore could not levy the penalty with reference to an amount which was already considered by the ITO and the AAC in earlier proceedings. The penalty of Rs. 4,802 enhanced by the AAC, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is cancelled. 7. With regard to the interest income of Rs. 388 not shown in the first and second returns, we are of the opinion that the AAC was justified in confirming the penalty with reference to this amount. The assessee had not shown this amount in the first or the second return. The default of concealment was committed on the date when it was not shown in the first return. Penalty with reference to this amount of Rs. 388 is therefore, up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
