1998 (6) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... basis of some estimate ?" The Tribunal has found that the assessee had reported an expenditure of Rs. 70,000 as the cost of construction of a factory building. That amount came to be debited in the assessee's books of account on January 2, 1971. The Income-tax Officer being of the opinion that the amount so shown as the expenditure on the construction was on the lower side, obtained a report of the valuer and estimated the cost of construction on that basis and estimated the cost at a higher figure. The estimate so made by the Assessing Officer was the subject-matter in appeal before the Tribunal which found that the addition to be made was to be limited to Rs. 40,000 as an estimate of income from the undisclosed sources being part of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the construction was in progress as the form in which the return was required to be submitted did not impose any such duty upon the assessee. The assessee had reported the fact that the construction had been put up, and after the same was completed the assessee had also shown in his books of account the expenditure which according to him had been incurred on the construction being a sum of Rs. 70,000. The assessee, therefore, could not be charged with concealment of the construction of the factory building solely on the ground that construction while in progress had not been mentioned by him in his return. After having so held, the Tribunal further held that on the facts of the case there was no concealment at all and all that had ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed earlier lead to the inference that there had been concealment. This court in the case of T. P. K. Ramalingam v. CIT [1995] 211 ITR 520 in similar circumstances set aside the order of the Tribunal which had upheld the levy of penalty on an assessee whose income had been assessed at a higher figure solely on the basis of the valuer's report which showed the cost of construction at a figure higher than the one reported by the assessee. This court followed its earlier decision in the case of CIT v. Apsara Talkies [1985] 155 ITR 303 and held that concealment must be deliberate and there being no proof of such deliberate concealment, the imposition of penalty was not warranted. The facts of this case are similar. There is no evidence to sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X