9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (4) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed return showing an income of Rs. 32,244. The ITO assessed him on a total income of Rs.59,513 which was reduced in appeal to Rs.47,753. The increase in the assessed income was largely because of several items of losses having been disallowed. Finding that the returned income was less than 80% of the assessed income the ITO referred the case to the IAC for consideration whether it was a fit case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. In this view, it was held that no penalty was leviable either under the substantive provisions of cl. (c) or under the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c). On these findings, the penalty was cancelled. At the instance of the Commissioner, the Tribunal has referred, for our opinion, the following questions of law : " 1. Whether for the purposes of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or each assessment year. An individual asses- see may have several sources of income but the liability to assessment of tax depends upon the total income. Under the Income-tax Act, the total income of an assessee is the assessable unit, not the individual sources, separately or independently. In the present case, the assessee had income from the business of Indian Oil products, from shares in seve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome which is returned or that which is assessed. We regret that we are unable to subscribe to the opinion expressed by the Tribunal that since the difference between the returned and the assessed income from the business of the assessee in Indian Oil products was less than 20%, the assessee was not liable to penalty, by reference to that item of income. There is no denying the fact that the diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
