9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 14,500 for the assessment year 1969-70, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? The assessee is a firm dealing in distribution of films. For the assessment year 1969-70, a return was filed declaring an income of Rs. 24,760 A statement was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent mistake. The two sums claimed in respect of these two pictures were thus added back and the assessment was completed. On the ground that this amounted to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, proceedings were initiated under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and on the ground that the minimum penalty imposable would exceed Rs. 1,000, the matter was referred to the IAC. On noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , said to be inadvertent or unintentional. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the plea of the assessee cannot be said to be bona fide and in any event it would amount to gross neglect. It is contended for the petitioner that there was no material on record to justify the conclusion that the mistake was anything but an inadvertent one or to infer any want of bona fides and the conclusion reache ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf observed as follows : " ...The assessee's counsel pointed out that this was the first time that mistakes of this type had occurred and the assessee had been careful in the past to make necessary adjustments relating to amortisation. This is no doubt true." But the Tribunal proceeded to state that this did not mean that the mistake was a bona fide one or occurred through oversight. Such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
