9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (2) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Belvandi Sugar Farm Ltd. declared dividends on the ordinary and preference shares in respect of the accounting year ended on the 30th September, 1952. The dividend amounts due to the assessee in respect of his ordinary and preference shares came to Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 3,000, respectively. In the financial year 1953-54, which was the accounting year of the assessee, dividends were also declared by certain other companies in which the assessee held shares and thus on the dividends declared by the Scindia Steam Navigation Co. on the 24th February, 1954, a sum of Rs. 675 was due to the assessee in respect of his shares of the said concern ; from the New United Construction Co. a sum of Rs. 4,500 was due in respect of the dividend which was declared on the 15th December, 1953, and a sum of Rs. 560 was due to the assessee in respect of the shares of the Belapur Sugar Mills Ltd. In the return, which the assessee filed for the assessment year 1954-55, the assessee did not include the amount of Rs. 63,000 in respect of the dividend declared by the Belvandi Sugar Farm Ltd. and the amount of Rs. 5,735 in respect of the aggregate amount of the dividends of the other three companies referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the return for the assessment year 1955-56, he had himself included the dividend of Rs. 27,000, although it had not been received during that year. The assessee also pointed out that, having realised his mistake, he had himself made a revised return even with regard to the assessment year 1954-55, which had already been concluded, and urged that this conduct on his part clearly showed that he had no intention either to conceal or to deliberately furnish inaccurate particulars. The Income-tax Officer, however, was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee because in his opinion the excuse which the assessee had put forward only meant ignorance of law on his part and could not, therefore, be accepted. In the appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the explanation which the assessee had given and held that, in view of the said explanation and the conduct of the assessee, it was not possible to hold that there was any deliberate intention on the part of the appellant to conceal his income or to furnish inaccurate particulars thereof. In that view of the matter he allowed the assessee's appeal and set aside the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year in which it is declared cannot be said to be the correct view. Since the order of penalty is based on the basis of the view that there is concealment on the part of the assessee because he has not included the dividend income in the year in which it was declared, it cannot be sustained since that view is no longer the correct view of law. Moreover, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there does not appear to be any evidence on record from which the assessee could be said to have either concealed or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. There can be no doubt, in our opinion, that the mere omission will neither amount to concealment nor a deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars unless there is some evidence to show or some circumstances found from which it can be gathered that the omission was attributable to an intention or desire on the part of the assessee to hide or conceal the income so as to avoid the imposition of tax thereon. Now, the facts of the present case show that the assessee, for a number of years up to 1954-55 and inclusive of the said year, was filing returns including therein dividends which had been actually received during the accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revised return on the 25th June, 1956. The learned counsel points out that if it was really out of a bona fide desire to correct a mistake inadvertently committed, why was it that the assessee waited till the 25th June, 1956, and did not file the revised return earlier or at the time when the return for the assessment year 1955-56 was submitted on May 2, 1956 ? It is only because of the enquiry which the Income-tax Officer appears to have made with the assessee on the 13th June, 1956, that the assessee has thought it desirable to come out with a revised return on the 25th June, 1956. It is argued by him that if no such enquiries were made, the assessee would never have proceeded to make the revised return. It is true no doubt that the assessee could have made the revised return much earlier than the 25th June, 1956, when he actually made it. But the mere circumstance that he did not do so would not be sufficient to draw a conclusive inference that he had deliberately attempted to conceal his income or to furnish inaccurate particulars thereof and it is only when he found that he could not succeed in his said attempt that he came out with a revised return. The conduct of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
