9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (1) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee, Dr. R. C. Gupta, carries on business under the name and style, Dr. R. C. Gupta Company as well as M/s. Laxmi Cycle Industries. He filed a return in the name of Dr. R. C. Gupta and Company, declaring an income of Rs. 3,022 from the property as well as business in cycle and motor parts, etc. He also filed another return in respect of his business carried on under the name and style, M/s. Laxmi Cycle Industries, and returned " nil " income (though the trading and profit and loss account showed a profit of Rs. 248). The ITO, however, did not accept the income as returned by the assessee. He determined the income from property as well as from the business carried on under the name and style, Dr. R. C. Gupta Company, at Rs. 4,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstead of Rs. 4 as was done by the ITO. However, he found that the total number of sets sold by the assessee was only 2,291 as against 4,791 determined by the ITO. Calculated on the revised basis, he assessed the income from the sale of the cycle parts at Rs. 18,328 as against Rs. 19,164 determined by the ITO. The assessee filed further appeal to the Tribunal which maintained the addition of Rs. 18,328 as determined by the AAC. The copies of the orders of the AAC and the Tribunal have also been submitted by the Tribunal and are marked annexs. " B " and " C ", respectively. Adverting to the penalty proceedings, since the amount of penalty involved was more than Rs.1,000, the ITO submitted the proceedings to the IAC, who, by his order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had not concealed the profits on the sale of sets of cycle parts so as to attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ? " From the undisputed facts stated above, it is amply clear that, according to the assessee himself, he had derived income from the sale of imported cycle part sets which he had not recorded in his books of account and which he had also not shown in the return. It is further admitted by him that he had made profit at the rate of Rs. 3 per set. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that the assessee had admittedly concealed the profits on the sale of sets of cycle parts. The mere fact that the ITO estimated the rate of profit at Rs. 4 per set and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
