9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business as selling agents of Burmah-Shell products. It has numerous branches in India with its head office at Calcutta. In both the years under reference, the original assessments were reopened on the grounds that income to the tune of Rs. 2,50,336 in the assessment year 1952-53 and Rs. 16,500 in the assessment year 1953-54 had escaped assessment. In the returns submitted after the reopening of the assessments, the assessee disclosed amounts of Rs. 2,50,336 and Rs. 24,039 for the respective assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54 in Part D of the return claiming that those amounts were not liable to be included in the assessments. The assessee's plea with respect to these amounts was that the assessee's branches collected amounts for charity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for charity realised by the assessee and he treated the same as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources for the respective assessment years. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for both the years and by issue of notices called upon the assessee to show cause why penalty be not imposed for these years. These notices were served on the assessee on November 24, 1962. The Income-tax Officer for the reasons given by him in the assessment orders treated the additions of Rs. 2,30,236 and Rs. 40,539 as the concealed income of the assessee and imposed the penalties for the two years by his order passed on August 12, 1970. The assessee preferred appeals against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case and the penalty orders cannot be sustained. " The question is whether in these facts the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the orders of penalty. The Income-tax Officer has imposed penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee was guilty of the offences of concealing particulars of its income in the original assessments. It is true that the assessee disclosed the receipts, which according to the Income-tax Officer, escaped assessment, in the part of the relevant return but such disclosure cannot absolve the assessee from the statutory liability in not disclosing the same in the original returns. It is now well settled that even if the assessee is guilty of no default in proceeding under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lment on the part of the assessee. The facts and circumstances of the particular case must justify the levy of penalty. In this case, the Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence before them, held that the Department did not collect any material to discharge the onus which lay on the Department to prove that the additions represented the income of the assessee and that the assessee concealed the same or furnished inaccurate particulars of the same. This finding is a, finding of fact which has not been challenged by any specific question by the Revenue. In the penalty proceeding, the nature and character of the addition have not been established. The findings in the assessment order are all that weighed with the Income-tax Officer. In our v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
