9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (3) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee declared an income for the year under consideration at Rs. 4,085 by way of forest contract business. According to the IAC, the assessee paid an amount of Rs. 45,225 as lease money during the period and also shown closing stock at Rs. 32,000, but as the assessee did not maintain proper books of accounts, the ITO estimated the sale at Rs. 60,000 and after applying a net profit rate of 15 per cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department. As regards the cash credit to the tune of Rs. 10,000, it was stated that the statements of two of the creditors had been recorded and that the assessee surrendered this amount of Rs. 10,000, also simply for the purpose of buying peace with the department. Besides the above, the assessee also challenged the jurisdiction of the IAC to levy the penalty in this case. The IAC on the oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not given to the assessee at the time of levying penalty. After receipt of this order which was passed in 1972, the IAC again levied penalty vide his order dt. 22nd Sept., 1979 i.e. after lapse more than 7 years. Thus penalty according to the ld. counsel for assessee has been levied after a much delay and as such in such circumstances various High Courts have quashed the penalties imposed by theR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s applicable only to taxing provisions such as a charging provision or a provision imposing penalty and not to those parts of the statute which contain machinery provisions. Since in the case before us we are dealing with a provision for imposition of penalty. we have to strictly construe limitation provided for imposition of penalty. Since the limitation provided in this case is only two years, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
