9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (1) TMI 71X 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 order of the Appellate Tribunal upholding the penalty order under section 271(1)(a) of the Act was justified ? " Facts, in brief, are that the assessee, a partnership firm, carried on business in foodgrains and oilseeds on wholesale basis. The previous year relevant to the assessment year 1967-68 was the first year of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, it could not be held that the assessee had a bona fide belief that its income for the year in dispute was below the taxable limit. Penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act is leviable if the ITO is satisfied that any person has, without reasonable cause, failed to furnish the return of total income which he was required to furnish under sub-s. (1) of s. 139 or by notice given under sub-s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be guided by what he himself believes to be his income. It is possible that it happens very frequently that an assessee may not consider a particular item to be his income and yet the ITO may hold otherwise. This decision war, followed in CIT v. Assam Automobile and Accessories Agency [1978] 111 ITR 411 (Gauhati) and in Onkar Estate Corporation V. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 635 (Guj). It was held by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure is bona fide, he cannot be penalised because the ITO does not accept, it. It has not been found by the Tribunal that the assessee concealed any income. The summary of profit and loss account filed by the assessee was not disbelieved. Only the investment on jeep was not allowed. May be, but the assessee could not have assumed or known it at the time of filing the return. And, this was the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
