1975 (9) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mstances: The assessee is a firm carrying on business in mica mining. For the assessment year 1957-58 it filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 8,249 from the mining section. The Income-tax Officer was not satisfied with this. He pointed out, during the course of the assessment proceedings, that he had information regarding various other internal and external transactions. The assessee after discussion with the Income-tax Officer agreed to the assessment on a total income of Rs. 60,000 from mica mining. But the matters did not stop there. The Income-tax Officer appears to have conducted some subsequent enquiries and thought that even the assessment on the basis of Rs. 60,000 would not be correct. He, therefore, ultimately completed the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion that the amount added in the assessment represented the assessee's income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the same or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. In the circumstances, following Anwar Ali's case, the Tribunal held that the department had not made out a case for the imposition of penalty of the assessee under section 28(1)(c) of the Act. Before us, learned standing counsel for the revenue strongly relies on the circumstance that the assessee had agreed to the assessment on the total income of Rs. 60,000 despite his return for a much lower amount. On a consideration of the totality of the circumstances, the Tribunal was of the opinion that it would not necessarily follow that there was conc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s incorrect. Lastly, reliance is placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sir Shadilal Sugar General Mills Ltd. There also there was an admission by the assessee that there were false claims of payment to contractors and that those items represented its income. These are clear cases of admission of concealment by the assessees and they do not help the revenue in this case because there is no such admission here. As we have pointed out, the only circumstance that is pressed against the assessee is that it had admitted for a higher assessment than its returned income. It is not, therefore, possible to say that the burden placed on the revenue in penalty proceedings to establish deliberate concealme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X