9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in cancelling the entire penalty of Rs. 25,980 levied under section 271(1)(c) in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1972-73 ? 2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal's finding that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income is based on valid and relevant material and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ?" The assessee is a director of Samarias Trading Co. P. Ltd., Madras. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee filed a return admitting an income of Rs. 20,971. The Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 25,980 towards the value of perquisites and the assessment was completed by him on a total income of Rs. 48,940. The additions made by the Income-tax Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see should have admitted the benefits that were received or enjoyed by him, though he may be of the view that it would not be perquisite in his view, The Income-tax Officer, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act and referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for the purpose of levying penalty. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner found that the company filed its return on December 30, 1972, and the assessee-director filed his return on January 4, 1974, and according to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner the assessee drew money from the company for his daughter's marriage in the hope that it would be treated as a loan due from him to the company. But the company's account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal also held that a reasonable man cannot be attributed with a knowledge, belief, idea or impression that the marriage expenditure debited in the profit and loss account in the company's account will be an item chargeable to tax in his personal assessment. The Tribunal, therefore, held that there was no concealment of income and accordingly cancelled the penalty levied. We are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal has given cogent reasons for cancelling the penalty. The view of the Appellate Tribunal that there was misuse of funds of the company's funds for his personal use and it cannot be treated as perquisite is a reasonable one on the facts of the case and the Appellate Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
