9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealt with by this common order. 2. The assessee showed in his returns certain capital gains from what he called ' long-term capital assets '. The assets in question were shares consisting partly of bonus shares which were issued to the assessee on such a date that the period up to their sale was shorter than that required to make them ' long-term capital assets '. The assessee did not disclose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " The assessee did give some information even in the notes accompanying the income-tax returns that he had received certain bonus shares. The assessee's omission to include in this list the bonus shares which were sold within 24 months gives scope to presume that the omission was not bona fide." " According to us the primary or the material facts which have been omitted from the income-tax ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Supreme Court which showed that it was an arguable matter and the assessee could not be penalized on that basis. He, therefore, argued that there was no mens rea on the part of the assessee. He also pointed out that in the wealth-tax return which was filed a month after the first original income-tax return, the fact that the bonus shares were sold had been disclosed and that the audit note whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision it was not necessary for him to state that a part of the shares were bonus shares. That possibility cannot be ruled out particularly because of the statement in the wealth-tax return. The question is whether in this situation the assessee was bound to disclose before the ITO that a part of the shares sold were bonus shares. On weighing both the pros and cons it seems undoubtedly true that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
