1974 (4) TMI 27

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was not liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee carried on business as a commission agent and of dealings in foodgrains. For the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee returned an income of Rs. 15,883 as per profit and loss account. However, the Income-tax Officer assessed him on an income of Rs. 71,217, round .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0 per cent. of the income assessed under section 143 of the Act. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was of the view that the assessee was guilty of gross negligence in not making additions to his income of the items mentioned above. The assessee then filed an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, however, took into consideration the fact that the items, referred to above, we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... )(c) of the Act?" We have stated the facts. It may be mentioned at the outset that, on these facts, the Tribunal could take either of the views, namely, that the omission was deliberate and also that it was not, because no explanation of the assessee was called for as to in what circumstances he omitted to add back the amounts which were mentioned in the profit and loss account and were, in fac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X