9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O. For the assessment year 1975-76, under consideration here, the assessee in the Annexure to Part III of the return---"Sums not included in the total income and claimed as not taxable"---disclosed number of items, investments, etc., which, according to the assessee, could not be treated as its income and were not liable to tax. Here it would be necessary to point out that this included investments in potatoes put in the cold storage and investments in the business of fertilisers, etc., as appearing in the Gutka (small red book). The ITO in the course of assessment proceedings held that the unexplained investment on potatoes put in the cold storage amounted to Rs. 5,050, while the unexplained investment in the business as appearing in the G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the search of the assessee's business and residential premises on 27-8-1974 and the consequent order of the ITO under section 132(5) and, therefore, what was disclosed by the assessee was not bona fide. He, therefore, vehemently argued before us that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was perfectly justified and was wrongly cancelled by the AAC. 4. On the other hand, the assessee's learned counsel, Shri Dhawan, at the outset filed before us a copy of the order of the AAC in the appeal against the assessment order where the addition of Rs. 10,000 on account of unexplained investment in the acquisition of jewellery kept in the locker in the names of Shri Bechanlal and Shri Amar Nath was deleted. He, therefore, submitted that the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, vehemently argued before us that no case of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the facts and circumstances of the present case was made out and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed by the ITO was rightly cancelled by the AAC. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is not under dispute that the addition of Rs. 10,000 for unexplained investment in gold jewellery kept in the locker in the names of Shri Bechanlal and Shri Amar Nath was deleted in appeal by the AAC. The question of any penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of this addition, therefore, simply does not arise. It is not under dispute that both the investments in fertiliser, etc., as appearing in the Gutka seized in the search and seizure, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kept in the cold storage, we fail to understand how in respect of these items it can be said that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. It might perhaps not be out of place to mention here that paragraph 2 of the notice under sections 139(2) and 133 reads as follows: "You are advised to furnish in the relevant portion of the prescribed form full particulars of any income which you may consider not liable to tax in your hands. If you do so, you will not be considered to have concealed that income even if in your assessment it is held to be liable to tax." We are really surprised that the department on the one hand assures the assessee that if he discloses the particulars in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
