9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (11) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of the examination of the accounts, the AAC was satisfied that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income. He started penalty proceedings and after making some further enquires fixed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000. The assessee is on appeal before us. 2. The assessee had filed the return in January, 1969 and so the amended provisions of s. 271(1)(c) would apply for quantification of penalty i.e., the minimum penalty would be equal to the concealed income. At the time of learning of the appeal, the learned counsel for assessee conceded penalty u/s 271(1)(c) us leviable. But his argument was that quantum has to be considerably that reduced. He submitted that some of the additions like disallowance of commission was only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r AAC's order and so even in respect of the so-called disallowances for want of proof there was concealment. 5. As we said earlier, the two commodities dealt with are jaggery and dates. The income finally estimated in jaggery account was Rs. 8,000. We have no doubt that this addition would attract penalty. There had been purchases of jaggery which had not been brought into accounts and so also the corresponding sales. The profit arising therefrom had been omitted to be accounted for. Certain lorry loads of jaggery had been sent from Coimbatore. As per depositions of the sellers these had been purchased in cash. Their accounts also support it. The Sales-tax check-post near Calicut had also noted these lorries as brining goods of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch much emphasis is laid by the AAC is the deposition of two supplies of jaggery at Coimbatore, S/Shri Parthasarathi and Kumaraswami. These evidences are not on par with the evidence found in the accounts of Burami. There the reverse said of the bill itself, the actual dates of payments etc. had been noted and these were at variance with the ledger account of the assessee. The account books of Burami corroborated the nothings on the reverse side of the bills. So, there we could without hesitation say that assessee's version was wrong. But in these two accounts, it is a case disbelieving either of the parties. On the facts, it could very well be that the Coimbatore parties could have kept incorrect books. We are not stating that they have an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In his first statement, he was asked this question. "Have you done business under the style Parthasarathi Co." His answer was : No. I have no own business. I was working with S. Kumaraswami, Jaggery Merchant., In 1965, Mr. Kumaraswami created the above name and the did business in my name". All other questions show that he was a dummy. That being the position very little credence can be placed on this statement for discrediting the assessee's accounts for the purpose of penalty proceedings. We may hasten to add that we do not give a finding as to the status of Mr. Parthasarathi, whether, he was really a dummy or not. We only out in the process of evaluating the evidence against the assessee. 10. Regarding the evidence of disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
