9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (9) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition on account of the suppression of sales at Rs. 25,000 and the other is the applicability of the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c). It was contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) was not applicable because the returned income was Rs. 7,52,696 and the finally assessed income was Rs. 7,96,438; 80 per cent of the finally assessed income being less than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arnail Singh vs. Kaleran (94 ITR 505 (P H)), B. Mahesh Hedge vs. CIT (95 ITR 316 (Mys)), CIT vs. Kadri Mills Coimbatore Ltd. (96 ITR 378 (Mad)), P.T. Commen, Indian Cashew Trading Co. vs. CIT (97 ITR 676 (Ker)), CIT vs. Raja Mohd. Amir Ahmad Khan (100 ITR 433 (All)), CIT vs. Hajee Hassan Yacoob Sait and Sons (101 ITR 11 (Ker)), CIT vs. Koduri Para Rao (102 ITR 834 (AP)) and CIT vs. M. Bhuta Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s well-settled by now that the material which may be sufficient for the assessment, need not necessarily be sufficient for the imposition of penalty. The reason is simple. The penalty is an added burden and in order that the assessee may be asked to shoulder that burden the Revenue must prove that the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
