9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (3) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintained. So in original assessment the business income was estimated at Rs. 8,000 which was reduced in appeal to Rs. 6,000. 3. Later on 28th May, 1971 there was a search in the residential and business premises of assessee. On the basis of the currency, some account books and documents, seized at that time, an order under s. 132(5) of IT Act, 1961 was passed determining the net undisclosed income at Rs. 7,81,106. 4. Then reassessments were made for asst. yrs. 1963-64 to 1970-71 and original assessments for 1971-72 the total income fixed was only Rs. 3,67,089. The ITO then though that the balance of Rs. 4,14,071 was not property explained. So, with the previous approval of the Central board, the assessment for this asst. yr. 1962-63 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only the individual income of an individual and not the income of an HUF and that the status of HUF was imposed on the assessee only by virtue of the orders of the IT authorities. The matter came up before us. We accepted the case of the assessee and cancelled the penalty. But that reasoning given by us in that order and relied on before us by the assessee for this assessment year is of no assistance to the assessee. that point does not arise here in this year. In this case before us there is no case for the Department, as we understood the penalty order, that there is concealment in the original return. The charge levelled against the assessee is that the concealment is in the revised return. That is why minimum penalty, on the basis of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly or perhaps because the representative of the assessee did not draw the attention of the IAC to that very vital aspect of the case) the effect of a certain statement made by the assessee in the revised return. The IAC proceeded on the basis that what was returned in the revised return in only, Rs. 7,000 from business income. But in part III of the revised return, the assessee had shown a further business income of about Rs. 13,000/- as income includible for assessment in that year but not included. The assessee did not include it on the plea that it is not includible because according to the assessee the proposed reassessment is invalid on the reasoning that the belief entertained by the ITO that the escaped income exceeds Rs. 50,000 is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the original assessment is only a matter of estimate. That estimate was enhanced to Rs. 47,000 only because of a availability of certain more reliable materials to make and estimate. That may be good for assessment. But that does not show that there was concealment of income. In substance, the figure of Rs. 40,000 was worked out only on the basis of difference between the accretion to the net wealth as estimated during the year, 1st April, 1961 to 31st March, 1962. Even what the ITO did was to estimate the net undisclosed income on a particular date at Rs. 7,81,106 and then to apportion it for various assessment order. After completing the reassessment for a number of years, the ITO found a certain omission still remaining for asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
