9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stainless steel in more than one place. A return was filed declaring an income of Rs. 7,500 without accompanying statements. Since there was no response to the notices issued under s. 142(1), the income was estimated at Rs. 75,000. There was no appeal against the assessment or an application under s. 146 within the time allowed by law though it appears that they were so filed long after that. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso perused the records. The events narrated earlier would show how deliberately the assessee has sought to disobey the notices and chose to Court an ex-parte order. His acquiescence in the order would only show the fairness of the income assessed. Even before me, the assessee has not chosen to support the income returned by him or rebut the income assessed by the ITO. His conduct throughout the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing officer himself had made an assessment on an income of Rs. 20,000 only as against the returned income of Rs. 10,000 for the immediately subsequent year. The assessment for the immediately preceding year was set aside and is pending final decision before the ITO. It was urged that his real income is much nearer the income returned than the income assessed. He claimed that the ITO or the IAC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible consequential liability under s. 271(1)(b). s. 271(1)(c) action does not automatically follow an ex-parte assessment. There should be material to suggest that the assessee knew the return of Rs. 7,500 was low. He must have concealed an income which, he knew existed. For not proving the income returned by ignoring the notices under s. 142(1) or s. 143(2), he invites penalty under s. 271(1)(b), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
