9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (2) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ips were seized. According to the STO, these slips evidenced the suppression of purchases and Sales, though the assessee contested that it showed only some arrears payment of bills. (See the nature of contest in the Sales Tax Tribunal order and in income-tax appellate order of the AAC). The STO then enhanced the taxable turnover to Rs. 4,98,201, which was confirmed by the Sales-tax AAC. But the Sales tax Tribunal reduced this to Rs. 1,60,000. 3. On 14th Dec., 1973 the assessee furnished his IT return. There was attached to the return a statement of account as per books maintained by the assessee. It showed a loss of Rs. 181 as per books and a profit of Rs. 632 as per the adjustment statement. Then a note was appended to it to state that b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal the Sales-tax Tribunal had determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 1,60,000. The assessee had pointed out before the AAC that the Sales-tax authorities had not given any facts of Sale suppression of purchase. Suppression to support the estimated turnover and that the slips found by the Sales-tax Department are only working sheets and also they denote some of the outstanding dues to the various parties and that the income from property had improved because of the vacation of the property by the previous tenant who had been in occupation for more than 15 years, because of which the assessee was unable to realise the proper rent. The AAC observed that it had to be borne in mind that the Sales-tax Tribunal had fixed only the taxable turnove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses and sales is not a relevant factor at all. At worst for the assessee what can be said is that Rs. 8,500 is a low estimate about the rate of profit, which the Tribunal set right by enhancing it to Rs. 16,000. Under such circumstances, concealment can be inferred only if it is an unduly low estimate or a deliberate under-estimate. But when we realise that Rs. 16,000 fixed by the Tribunal is the outer limit of a possible estimate, it is not possible to say that Rs. 8,500 is a low estimate intentionally made or as held in 108 ITR 736 (Mds) a deliberate under-estimate. That is why we say that this is only a case of estimate against estimate. 6. Here we would like to point out one aspect of the case. The slips recovered according to the STO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. There is nothing in the case to show that the failure to return the correct income arose from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee. The enhancement from Rs. 8,500 to Rs.16,000 was not on account of proof of any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee. There is also no material in the case to indicate any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee. So, for these reasons, the assessee has established that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on this part. So, the Explanation, is not on merits applicable to the case. Therefore, the penalty has got to be cancelled. 8. Amount the various decisions of various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
