9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , i.e., Rs. 1,05,000 taken by the Tribunal. - In the result, we answer the question that the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 85,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, but considering the admitted facts there was a concealment of income of Rs. 11,198, the penalty is thus reduced to the figure of Rs. 11,198. - - - - - Dated:- 21-4-2003 - Judge(s) : Y. R. MEENA., SHASHI KANT SHARMA. JUDGMENT On an application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 85,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er: "It would, in our opinion, be not possible to say that the assessee was trying to withhold primary facts from the Department with a view to conceal his income. If the assessee had not indicated the gross realisable fees in the very first return and his actual realisations therefrom there could have been some justifications for the charge of concealment. But when he showed the figure of gross realisable as well as the actual realised amount, according to him, he placed the facts as he saw them at the relevant time before the Department squarely and, in our opinion, it would not be reasonable to say, on these facts, that the assessee had attempted to conceal the particulars of his income or to furnish inaccurate particulars of his incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ----------------- The case of the assessee that he has shown in the return, gross receipt of Rs. 93,000 and the net receipt of Rs. 43,802 in the final revised return. Even if we give benefit to him, the fact is that he has disclosed these particular figures. On those figures no case of concealment of income is made out, but that can be accepted until the amount he has shown, i.e., Rs. 93,802. But there is no explanation for the concealment of income to the tune of Rs. 11,198, i.e., a difference of gross income he has shown in the return, i.e., Rs. 93,802, and the final figure of income from profession, i.e., Rs. 1,05,000 taken by the Tribunal. There is no further challenge of that addition. Therefore, even if we accept the explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
