9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses for all relevant assessment years is identical. So, we take I. T.A. No. 1532/Mds/2012 for the assessment year 2003-04 as the "lead" case. I. T. A. No. 1532/Mds/2012 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a qualified anesthetist working in Apollo Hospitals Ltd., Chennai. On November 28, 2003, he had filed his "return" disclosing income of Rs. 2,85,090 which was processed under section 143(1) of the "Act". In the month of February, 2006, the "Department" had conducted certain investigations with respect to the hospital and found that it had collected moneys from the patients and did not account the same in its books. The hospital's clarification submitted in support was that it had retained 10 per cent. of the unaccounted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file an appeal before the "Tribunal", wherein vide order dated November 20, 2009 in I. T. A. No.1111/Mds/2009, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order granting relief to the assessee qua expenditure at 30 per cent was modified to 15 per cent. The assessee, thereafter, did not carry the matter in appeal and quantum proceedings attained finality. Since, the penalty proceedings stood revived, the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that he had neither concealed his income nor furnished inaccurate particulars and the default in not declaring the income was not willful. His plea before the Assessing Officer was that under the genuine impression that all the amounts received by him from the hospital were included in the cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and prayed for upholding the same. We have heard both parties at length and also gone through relevant records pertaining to the assessee's quantum proceedings as well as penalty in hand which are available in the case file. Admittedly, the assessee, at the first instance had not accounted for the amount in question of 22,77,395. It was only during the investigation pertaining to the hospital, the Department had come to know about the said non-disclosure of the income by the assessee. When the notice in question under section 148 was issued to the assessee, then only he chose to disclose the above receipt and raised claim of expenditure. His claim of expenditure has also been restricted to that of 15 per cent. by the co-ordinate Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment years, we observe that none the less the conduct of the assessee in concealing the income and furnishing inaccurate particulars is one and the same. Therefore, adopting "Doctrine of continuity" and concurrence, we hold that the penalty in the assessee's case is liable to be confirmed only in the first assessment year, i.e., assessment year 2000-01 instead of all the assessment years. The concealment is collective in all the six assessment years. Therefore, on this score, he is entitled for some relief as well. Hence, by upholding the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the first assessment year, i.e., assessment year 2000-01, we allow the assessee's appeal for the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
