9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (9) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r should be taken into consideration which has been concealed in the account books? (2) If the answer to the above question is in the negative then whether the revising authority was justified in reducing the amount of penalty to Rs. 150 only?" The material facts, as set out in the statement of the case, are briefly these: The assessee-firm carried on business in foodgrains, oil-seeds and allied commodities. In the year 1968-69, it returned its gross and taxable turnovers as about Rs. 18,45,000 and Rs. 1,017 respectively. A survey made on 31st January, 1969, revealed that the assessee had concealed a part of its turnover. Thereafter, the assessing authority determined the taxable turnover for that year as Rs. 50,000. The assessee filed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e particulars of such turnover; or (c) has without reasonable cause, failed to pay, within the time allowed the tax assessed on him, he may direct that such dealer shall pay, by way of penalty, in the cases referred to in clauses (a) and (c), in addition to the amount of tax payable by him, a sum not exceeding 25 per cent of the tax due, if the tax is up to Rs. 10,000 and not exceeding 50 per cent of the tax due if the tax is above Rs. 10,000 and in the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum not exceeding one and one half times the amount of tax, which would have been avoided, if the turnover, as returned by such dealer, had been accepted as the correct turnover." The present case comes within the amb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income as finally estimated and the penalty need not be confined to the income shown to have been concealed." The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kalidindi Subbaraju's case(2) was approved by the Supreme Court in Mansukhlal and Brothers v. Commissioner of Income-tax[1969] 73 I.T.R. 546 (S.C.). The Supreme Court held that under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, where it was discovered that income had been concealed by an assessee, the income-tax authorities have to determine what would have been the amount of tax that would have escaped assessment, had the income as shown in the return submitted by him been accepted as correct and that 1½ times of that amount would be the maximum limit within which penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
