9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-firm filed its income-tax return on 2nd Aug., 1975 admitting income of Rs 40,000. The ITO made the assessment including, inter alia, a sum of Rs 15,290 (omission in sales, etc., not proved) and Rs. 9,500 being the difference in price paid disallowed as speculation loss. The ITO also initiated penalty proceeding for the default under s. 271(1)(c). Meanwhile the assessee went on appeal to the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee's plea regarding the item of Rs. 9,500 in his view that the ITO had not proved concealment regarding the item. 2. Before us the 1d. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a raid at the assessee's premises on 28th Nov, 1972 when the assessee's account book upto that date was seized by the department. Thereafter the assessee filed its income-tax return before the ITO estimatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll have to be checked and statements filed. Considering the aforesaid defects in accounts and other circumstances the income is estimated. It is respectfully submitted that the estimate is made in the above circumstances. The assessee has no objection to the estimate and fixation of income for a proper and just assessment considering all the facts and circumstances." The submissions of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lable and the assessee has also admitted that it had no objection to the department making a correct assessment. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Amwar Ali's case (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC) that penalty under s. 271(1)(c) can be levied only if it is established that the assessee had consciously concealed that particulars of its income and had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
