9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (1) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had concealed the income as the same was not included in the returns filed by the assessee and thereby confirming the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c)of the Act ? " The relevant assessment year is 1972-73. The assessee during the previous year relevant to the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. was not shown. The ITO by his letter dated 23rd December, 1972, informed the assessee that it was found that he was a partner in M/s. Karamchand Bros. the assessment of which had been completed and that he did not show the share income in the return filed by him. The ITO called upon the assessee to explain why the share income from that firm be not included and why action for imposition of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom M/s. Moti Construction Co., it was stated that the return was subject to adjustment in respect of share of profit or loss from M/s. Moti Construction Co., intimation of which had not been received till then. The ITO levied a penalty of Rs. 11,471 on the assessee for non-inclusion of the share income of M/s. Karamchand Bros. under s. 271 (1)(c). In appeal, the AAC reduced the penalty to Rs.6, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is apparent that there was no intention to conceal the income and the omission in the first return of the share income from M/s. Karamchand Bros. was for the reason that two different persons dealt with the cases of these two firms on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal, in reaching its conclusion that there was an intention to conceal the particulars of income has omitted to consider this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
