9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (4) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry method provided in s. 143(1) of IT Act, 1961. Of course, the assessment order was communicated to the assessee only on 30th Jan. 1973. But along with the completion of assessment, the ITO had directed his Inspector to make an investigation about his income and wealth. The Income-tax Inspector met the assessee on 17th Jan., 1973 and asked for some details of course, the assessee seems to have furnished such details without any hesitation to the Income-tax Inspector. Then on 23rd Jan., 1973, the assessee voluntarily furnished another revised return, perhaps, not knowing that his Income-tax assessment had been completed on the first return. in the relevant accounting year he has received as fees from the Kerala State Electricity Board a sum of Rs. 18,650 and another Rs. 6,535, in the aggregate a sum of Rs. 25,185. These two receipts were included in the revised return. The order sanctioning the payment of Rs. 18,650 is as follows: " KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ABSTRACT EAP Cases of 1968 at District Court. Kottayam-Heard and disposed of Advocates fee-Sanctioned. B.O. Law. IV-20722/69 Dated, Trivandrum, 6th Jan.,1971 Read:- Letter dt. 7th Feb., 1970 from S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate, Kottayam being his fee for the conduct of the following E.A.P. Cases on behalf of the Board. . No. of the cases Advocate fee sanctioned . . Rs. 1. 60/69 30.00 2. 42/69 200.00 3. 61/69 90.00 4. 27/69 125.00 5. 69/69 150.00 6. 58/69 500.00 7. 15/69 500.00 8. 7/69 500.00 9. 17/69 150.00 10. 19/69 30.00 11. 22/69 220.00 12. 34/69 500.00 13. 40/69 500.00 14. 43/69 500.00 15. 44/69 500.00 16. 48/69 500.00 17. 49/69 500.00 18. 52/69 500.00 19. 161/69 290.00 20. 20/69 100.00 21. 41/69 50.00 22. 51/69 50.00 23. 135/69 50.00 . Total Rs. 6,535.00 The Superintending Engineer, Generation and Transmission Circle, Poovanthuruthu will arrange the payment debiting the expenditure to the work concerned. The amount covere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee relied on by the assessee to show that it is only a bonafide omission which he sought to correct at the earliest opportunity has no evidentiary value. 7. Kerala State Electricity Board is one of his important clients. It is the admitted position that in making the estimate of income for the purpose of original return the receipt from this Board has not been taken into account. By no stretch of imagination can we think that it is forgetfulness that made him to do so. If he omitted to consider it in making his estimate it can only be with an intention to conceal the income. That it was an accidental or a bonafide omission cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. That he did not look into or had no occasion to look into the bank account where this money is deposited, which is mainly a suiter's account, where clients, moneys are generally deposited is a films arguments. In any event, the explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961, will be attracted because the omission to consider while making an estimate for return of professional income the receipts from such an important client is nothing but gross negligence. No ordinary "man" in his ordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt of money. It is different from accrual. Cheque is only a mode of payment. So it is only a case for the receipt in this relevant accounting year but the accrual is in the accounting year relevant to asst. yr. 1971-72. As regards to other item of Rs. 6,535 it accrues in the relevant accounting year. Just because the assessee claimed it by a letter dt. 19th Feb., 1971 it cannot be said that it accrued to him on that date. So also we cannot accept the argument of the assessee that the fee accrues as and when the case for which the fee is paid is over. In cases like this where the Board retains a counsel the fee accrues only when the Board, the client, sanctions the payment. So strictly speaking Rs. 18,650 is not the income of this year but the income of the previous asst. yr. 1971-72. But this finding cannot help the assessee to resist a finding of concealment because the other receipt from the Board for Rs. 6,535 is definitely income which accrued in the relevant accounting year. That accrual and receipt had been omitted to be considered while making the estimate for original return. So definitely there is concealment. 10. But this finding that Rs. 18,650 is not the income of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
