9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t disclosed. The learned ITO during the course of assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1972-73 came to know that the assessee failed to disclose income of the shops in the returns for the assessment years under consideration. So in his opinion the assessee failed to disclose income in the original returns. Consequently, he started proceedings under s. 147(a)/148 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of all the years under consideration. 3. The service of the notice under s. 148 of the Act was made on 14th Sep., 1976. The assessee filed returns on 19th Jan., 1977 disclosing income from both the shops in the returns. Consequently, the assessment was made accordingly. The learned ITO at the time of completing the assessment initiated penalty pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under the belief that income from the two shops which stood in the name of assessee's wife was not to be disclosed in the returns. Later on, when the assessee came to know about his liability the revised returns were filed on 26th Dec., 1974, in respect of all the years under consideration. In those returns the assessee disclosed income from both the shops. It means that the Department could only know about this income after the assessee willingly disclosed the same on 26th Dec., 1974. The notice under s. 148 of the Act, 1961 could be served only on 14th Sep., 1976. So it is not correct to say that the assessee disclosed the income from the two shops after the same was detected by the Department. Thus it was contended that omission in not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was income of the assessee and the same could not be disclosed in the original returns by mistake. 10. The ITO started proceedings under s. 147(a)/148 of the Act, 1961. Notice under s. 148 of the Act was served only on 14th Sep., 1976. There is no evidence on record from which it could be established that prior to 26th Dec., 1974 the IT Department came to know about the omission on the part of the assessee in not disclosing the income from two shops in respective years. The assessee has given consistent explanation before the authorities below. It has been pleaded all along that on account of Bona fide mistake and omission the assessee could not disclose the income from two shops in the original returns for all the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
