9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... During the course of the assessment proceedings it was noticed that the assessee deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000 on 24th Aug., 1966 in the State Bank of Bikaner, Jodhpur whereas no such deposit made in the bank was shown in the books of account on that date. In the books of account the said amount was shown to have been deposited with the bank on 26th Aug., 1966. The explanation of the assessee was that a sum of Rs. 10,000 was borrowed from Smt. Subati Devi, wife of Shri Pooran Chand of Balotra. The ledger account maintained by the assessee did not disclose any account in the name of Smt. Subati Devi. A copy of the assessee's account in the books of Smt. Subati Devi was filed but this was not accepted because in the books of the assessee no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice did not indicate the nature of concealment of income and that there was no finding in the assessment order on the basis of which the show cause notice had been issued. The ITO, thereafter, issued another show cause notice fixing the hearing for 22nd March, 1974, but this show cause notice itself was received by the assessee on 25th March, 1974. The assessee wrote a letter dt. 30 March, 1974 to the ITO submitting that it would like to produce Smt. Subati Devi with her accounts to prove the genuineness of the loan. The ITO, however, levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on 29th March, 1974 on the ground that the assessee had concealed income to the extent of Rs. 10,000. 4. The assessee filed an appeal to the AAC and first submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. The learned Departmental Representative referred to the judgment in Guduthur Bros. vs. CIT (1960) 40 ITR 298 (SC) Calcutta Tanneries (1944) Ltd. vs. CIT 40 ITR 178 and pleaded that the AAC was justified in setting aside the penalty order and directing the ITO to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He has submitted that since the Tribunal itself had confirmed the addition of Rs. 10,000 penalty had been rightly levied in this case. He pleaded that the AAC was justified in setting aside the order of the ITO and directing him to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In our opinion, the AAC should no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
