9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Assessment of total income discrepancy 2. Penalty for concealment of income 3. Entertaining additional evidence in penalty appeal Analysis: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the AAC of IT for the assessment year 1973-74. The ITO completed the assessment, determining the total income at Rs. 65,930, as opposed to the declared income of Rs. 43,000. A discrepancy was noted regarding a cash credit entry in the account of Gopi Ram, leading to a dispute over the genuineness of the credit. The Appellate Commissioner declined to entertain the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred, concluding the matter regarding the quantum of income. Subsequently, the ITO initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee for the concealment of income amounting to Rs. 9,000, which was included in the assessment as deemed income from undisclosed sources. A penalty was imposed by the ITO, leading the assessee to appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the penalty matter back to the AAC for a fresh decision, considering a new affidavit from Gopi Ram. The assessee contended that the AAC had declined to permit the production of additional evidence in the penalty appeal. In the second round of litigation, the AAC confirmed the penalty, prompting the assessee to appeal again. The assessee argued that the discrepancy in dates was due to Gopi Ram's lack of proficiency in English. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, noting that the rejection of the cash credit explanation was based on Gopi Ram's financial capacity, not concealment of income. It was established that the sum in question was not the firm's income during the relevant year, leading to the deletion of the penalty. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee and deleting the penalty imposed for the alleged concealment of income.
|
