9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal, i.e., the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the ITO, Ward-1(6), Surat, levying penalty of Rs. 80,640 under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is around 70 years old man and he has filed the return of income on 5th Nov., 1993, declaring the total income at Rs. 1,70,240. The return was subsequently re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee in his written reply to the CIT has submitted the detailed reasons for not paying the tax in advance and he has also submitted that no enquiry was made by the AO on the date regarding credit entry of Rs. 90,000 in the capital account of the assessee. The hearing was not over on 9th Aug., 1994 and it was adjourned to 25th Aug., 1994. In the meantime, on 17th Oct., 1994, the assessee has fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment. Therefore, we are of the view that if the revised return is accepted then it is a duty of the AO to make a deep enquiry relating to his concealment of income of Rs. 90,000. We have gone through the penalty order in which the AO has not made any detailed enquiry, but he has simply stated that the assessee was issued summons by the ADII (Inv.)-IV, Surat, requiring him to produce details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. If there is material to hold that the filing of a revised return was only a camouflage to overcome an omission deliberately made in the original return, penalty for concealment of income would be attracted. On the other hand, if the revision of the return is an honest and bona fide, one, that is to say, of an omission having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
