9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name suggests, it carries on the business of photo studio. The assessment year involved is 1976-77 for which the accounting year ended on 3-11-1975. Original assessment in this case was finalised on 3-1-1979 on a total income of Rs. 51,430. There was search and seizure operations in the premises of the assessee-firm and its partners' residence on 14-7-1983 when the books of accounts were seized. As per the seized books, purchases made during 28-8-1975 and 9-3-1976 consisting of 17 items amounted to Rs. 40,904. These purchases did not find place in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee for regular business. Of these purchases, payments totalling to Rs. 8,415 were made by cheques and these payments were reflected in the books of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the assessee stated that the bills for Rs. 32,489 could not be produced because purchases were made by the accountant and it would not be possible to lead any corroborative evidence with regard to such purchases. Nonetheless, his contention was that the addition made by the Assessing Officer may be good for tax purposes, but not for levy of concealment penalty. According to him, the assessee has given bona fide explanation. The explanation was that the accountant who made purchases did not present the bills and as and when such bills were received they have been duly accounted for and this bona fide explanation should be accepted for the purpose of deciding the concealment penalty. As regards the trading account, the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1976-77. 8. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee made a plea that the addition of Rs. 10,000 made to the trading account should be set off against the unrecorded purchases of Rs. 32,489. He further contended that the quantum of penalty imposed is also excessive. According to his calculation, the tax sought to be evaded amounted to Rs. 23,305 as against Rs. 36,000 imposed by the Assessing Officer. His further contention was that the old Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was wrongly applied by the Assessing Officer whereas the new Explanation to section 273 is applicable. In the case of the assessee, clause B of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to prove such explanation, and concealment is manifest the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income shall, for the purpose of clause (c) of section 271(1) be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. In other words, in view of the statutory prescription, contained in clause B of Explanation 1 and also the proviso the addition sustained shall be deemed to represent the income in respect of which the particulars have been concealed. Consequently, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is warranted on the charge of concealed particulars of income and therefore, penalty is justified in law. 11. However, as per the calculation furnished by the learned counsel for the assessee, the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
