9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (8) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The assessment year under appeal is 1968-69 of which the relevant previous year ended on1st Nov., 1967. Both the appellants are partners in Meerut Tobacco Products, Jitendra Kumar having 40 per cent share and Anil Kumar having 30 per cent. There is a third partner named Sriniwas having 30 per cent share. These two partners were the also partners in another firm named Meerut Bidi Factory,Meerut. In the return filed for 1968-69 assessment year, the assessees did not show their share of income from the firm Meerut Tobacco Product amounting to Rs. 740 in the case of Jitendra Kumar and Rs. 555 in the case of Anil Kumar. The ITO completed the assessment on 28th March, 1972 in the case of Jitendrar Kumar for 1968-69 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice requiring the assessee to show cause why penalty under s. 271(1)(c) be not imposed. In reply to the show cause notice Shri O.P. Sapra learned counsel for the assessee stated that this was due to bonafide mistake on account of oversight and there was no mens-rea. The ITO was, however, not satisfied with the explanation and was of the opinion that the assessee s contention was not tenable. According to the ITO the assessee was a partner of the firm and it could not be presumed that he did not know the sources of his income specially from firm in which he was a partner. The ITO accordingly held hat the assessee had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed the particulars of his income to the extent of Rs. 740 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese two appellants in respect of 1968-69 assessment year that the previous year ended on 1st Oct., 1967 and s the accounts of the newly formed firm were closed on 31st Dec., 1967, the bonafide mistake occurred on the part of the assessee. it has been submitted hat if the ITO could forget to include the share income from this newly formed firm in the assessment for 1969-70 assessment year, even though admittedly declared in the return, the assessee s explanation that the omission on the part of the assessee to include a small amount of Rs. 740 in the case of Jitendra Kumar and Rs. 555 in the case of Anil Kumar was due to bonafide mistake and should have been accepted by the Revenue. 5. The Departmental Representative, on the other hand, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt has held hat mere omission will not amount to concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars unless the omission is attributable to an intention or desire on the part of the assessee to hide or conceal the income so as to avoid the imposition of tax thereon. The tax on the income of Rs. 740 or Rs. 555 is quite negligible while the assessee would have run the risk of being penalised equal to the amount of income concealment which has been done in the is case and we are of the opinion that the assessee who are being assessed on substantial income (the appellants are also wealth-tax assessees) for several years would not be so foolish as to conceal a petty amount of Rs. 740 in the case of Jitendra Kumar and Rs. 555 in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
