9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2008 -TMI - 31520 - SUPREME COURT] followed. - 289 of 1995 - - - Dated:- 9-7-2009 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and MRS. DAYA CHAUDHARY, JJ. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh has referred, at the instance of the assessee, following questions of law for opinion of this Court under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") arising out of its order dated 15.3.1993 in ITA No. 1247/Chandi/87 for the assessment year 1977-78:- 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that penalty proceedings under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the sale had taken place on 29.4.1976, whereas the return had been filed on 30.7.1977, but the income resulting from capital gain was not shown by her. Not only that, the assessee did not think it appropriate to file a revised return after notice u/s 148. It has been therefore, argued that the assessee had willfully and deliberately concealed her income not only in the original return filed on 30.7.1977 but even subsequently. As regards income from property shown by the assessee for the relevant year, it has been pointed out by the ld. D.R. that income from property was shown as if to represent it to be income from property which was actually sold by her. It was represented to be income from that property and thereby it was attempted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so, the assessing officer had completed the assessment on the basis of return filed by the assessee. Subsequently, it was found that the assessee had sold 1,000 shares of a company and had capital gains but she had failed to furnish necessary particulars in the original return. The assessing officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 (a) and completed the assessment, treating the receipt as capital gains. It was pleaded by the assessee in that case that the assessing officer could have noticed from the wealth-tax returns filed by the assessee for two years that the assessee had sold certain shares. It was held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that it was the duty of the assessee to disclose all primary facts. The ld. D.R. has, on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f agreement to sell in application for clearance certificate in form 34-A cannot be equated to disclosure in the income tax return. The assessee failed to file a revised return inspite of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee was also convicted for concealment. 6. In view of above undisputed facts, we find that there was material for the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings. Contention that the penalty was liable to be set aside on account of CIT (A) describing the action of the assessee as "showing inaccurate particulars, while the Assessing Officer described the same as "concealing the particulars" cannot be upheld. The observations of the CIT (A) are also in the context of concealing and mere fact that mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
