9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates to the assessment year 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03. Assessee is an individual and the appeal is about the justification of levy of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which is in a sum of Rs. 33,187/- for the assessment year 2000-01, Rs. 96,732/- for the assessment year 2001-02 and Rs. 5,987/- for the assessment year 2002-03. 2. This appeal had been admitted for examination on the following questions of law. 1. Whether in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the penalty under section 271(1) (c)? 2. Whether in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c) in the absence of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002-2003 Rs. 40,06,225/- Rs. 37,06,225/- 6. During the assessment proceedings and during the hearing, the Assessing Officer realized that for the purpose of filing of the return of income the assessee had tampered with the TDS certificate which had been issued by the person deducting tax at source and given to the assessee. While producing the certificate with the return the figures relating to the actual payment had been tampered and reduced as indicated above. 7. It is because of the reduced receipts as indicated by the assessee, the tax liability came down and the assessee had sought for refund from out of the tax deducted at source remitted to the revenue. 8. In such circumstances, the Assessing Officer w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of fact, not merely concealment but tampering of the certificate of TDS by altering the figures in the certificate as had been indicated by the person deducting tax at source but before placing it before the Assessing Authority the assessee had altered the figures so as to reduce the tax liability for three years and therefore, this was a case of not merely concealment, but also concealment by tampering of records and no occasion arises for this Court to interfere in the appeal. 12. We have bestowed our consideration to the submission made at the Bar. 13. We find that the record does indicate the tampering of record on the part of the assessee, though the explanation given is that the assessee is an ignorant, illiterate person. That e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
