9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me " or " furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income " to the income-tax authorities. After placing the aforesaid notice, which is annexure " M " to the present writ petition Mr. Sanjoy Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, submitted that the aforesaid notice suffers from an inherent infirmity, as section 271(1)(c)(iii) provides for actual quantification of income. In order to understand the argument of Mr. Bhattacharya, it will be convenient for me to set out the said provision hereinbelow: "271. (1) If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant-Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- ...... (c) has conceal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ------ 1,38,531 Add: expenses disallowed: 1/5th of depreciation on car estimated as attributable to personal use 375 Car expenses estimated to be for personal use 5,000 Profession tax under section 40(a)(ii) 200 Telephone for personal use 400 Payment to Calcutta Club being personal 2,995 ----------- 9,021 ------------ 1,47,552 Other sources dividend 6,957 (TDS-Rs. 1,578). Bank interest 3,869 A. D. refund 948 Other receipts 2,517 ------------- 14,291 ---------------- Less: Deduction 1,73,417 under section 80C 11,512 80G 1,203 80L 3,000 -------------- 15,715 ---------------- Total income 1,57,702 ---------------- Proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 273(c) has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or penalty cannot be justified, as, by the appellate order, which has been passed on August 20, 1981, 5 months after issuance of the aforesaid impugned notice it cannot be supported in the eye of law, more so, when the original assessment order has no existence in the eye of law, as it appears that each item of adding back has been interfered with by the appellate authority as referred to hereinabove, in the appellate order. In conclusion, Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that no penalty can be imposed on the basis of the provisions as no offence has been committed under section 271(1)(c)(iii) and, as such, no notice can be issued in respect of the writ petitioner and the same should be quashed by issue of appropriate writ in the nature of cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
