9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assesee against the consolidated order passed by the Tribunal dated 5-10-2005 in ITA Nos. 2921, 2922 & 2923/B/04. Hence all the petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. According to the assessee there is defect in the order at para 5 to the effect that the case laws were relied upon by the Ld. D.R. which is not correct. The case laws were in fact relied upon by the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low : u In the case of K.M. Bhatia v. CIT 193 ITR 379, it was held that since the revised return was furnished voluntarily by the assessee by accepting the mistake in claiming double deduction, penalty can not be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. u In the case of CIT v. Sri Rajaram Cloth Stores 214 ITR 262 , it was held by the High Court that the concealment was admitted in the revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of filing the original return. Hence, penalty was cancelled. u In the case of CIT v. Smt. Sova Bajoria 232 ITR 202 , it was held that due to oversight and mistake in the original return, the assessee did not disclose capital gain on sale of jewellery. However in the revised return it was disclosed by the assessee. In such a situation, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal. From the aforesaid discussion we find that none of the case laws can be applied in the present circumstances of the case. In this case, the assessee has disclosed lower amount of receipts by tampering with TDS certificates. It is not the case that by oversight or due to some genuine reason, the lower amount of receipt was shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
