9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50% share each in the firm, M/s. Shazada Hosiery Mills. They filed their returns of income on 21st February, 1964, Anand Sagar declaring his share income to be Rs. 34,779 and Vidya Sagar declaring his share income to be Rs. 34,849. Income from the house property was declared to be the same as for the assessment year 1962-63. Later on, the said partners-assessees furnished revised returns on 26th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts, on appeal, were confirmed by the AAC. The ITO being of the view that the two assessees had concealed particulars of their share income, made references to the IAC under s. 274(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The IAC initiated penalty proceedings against both the assessments on the ground of concealment of particulars of income earned by them by way of share in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said attempt was by way of transfer of profits from one year to another inasmuch as the correct income of the firm in question had been disclosed in the returns filed in August, 1964, for the assessment year 1964-65. This circumstance was held to be an ultimate factor in determining the penalty to be imposed. On a reference application being made on behalf of the revenue, the following question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 was not totally concealed but was merely transferred from one year to another, is one of the relevant considerations for considering the quantum of penalty to be imposed. We do not consider that the Tribunal fell in error in taking into consideration this fact while reducing the penalty from 50% to 30% of the tax sought to be avoided. For the reasons recorded a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
