9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. 2. In penalty proceedings the assessee filed written reply on 23rd Dec., 1976 which was received on 31st Dec., 1976. Inter alia it was contended that there was no concealment of income by the assessee. The income was assessed at higher figure after disallowing certain expenses. It was also claimed that income from property was erroneously added. The ITO was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. According to him, there was concealment of income by the assessee to the extent of Rs. 21,524. So the ITO imposed penalty of Rs. 21,600. Being aggrieved with the order of the ITO the assessee took up the matter in appeal. The ld. AAC was not fully satisfied with contention of the assessee. In his opinion penalty to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of this item. As a matter of fact the ITO was of the view that there was income from rent amounting to Rs. 2,772 and the same was concealed by the assessee. According to the learned counsel this observation of the ITO was not correct. The assessee had disclosed the rent in the books of account which were kept in the ordinary course of business. The other contention of the learned counsel was that the learned AAC was wrong in stating that the assessee admitted that payment of his income tax was his income. There was no admission by the assessee. According to the learned counsel from the evidence on record, it is clear that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee in not returning its assessed income. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed inflation of cash balance of Rs. 5,000. 6. The next time for imposing the penalty was regarding non-disclosure of capital gains. According to the assessment order there was capital gain of Rs. 10,725. The AAC held that capital gain was only to the extent of Rs. 3,900. As a matter of fact, in the original return the assessee failed to disclose the capital gain but in the revised return the assessee clearly disclosed the capital gain. This revised return was filed before any detection was done by the Department. The learned Departmental Representative was not able to point out any material from which it could be proved that before filing the revised return the Department found that there was capital gain to the assessee. Once the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
