9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (6) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of together by a common order. 2. For the asst. yr. 1973-74, the WTO imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lacs under s. 18(1)(c) of the WT Act and for the asst. yr. 1974-75, a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 under the same section. In appeal, the CWT(A) has reduced the penalty for the first year to Rs. 11,085 and for the second year to Rs. 7,855. For the asst. yr. 1973-74, the CWT(A) upheld the levy of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bona fide omission through oversight and the assessee, on its own, in the revised returns disclosed the amounts of wealth omitted in the original returns filed for the two assessment years. He invited our attention to the order-sheet entries reproduced in the two penalty orders to show that the WTO had not detected the omission of the two amounts in each of the two assessment years and had merely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1973 and through inadvertence, this withdrawal of Rs. 6,000 which took the form of a deposit was omitted. Similarly in the case of credit balance in Post Office Saving Bank Account of Rs. 5,085, it was pointed out that the assessee was not operating that account after 6th April, 1974 and on the date of filing of return on 9th March, 1976, the balance in this account was a much smaller amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of the amount of Rs. 1,855 on 30th Sept., 1973. This is also a mistake which in the human conduct can occur and it cannot be said to be improbable and impossible one and hence we are inclined to accept the assessee's explanation. The Deptl. Rep. tried to justify the levy of two penalties on the theoretical ground that what was relevant was the state of mind of the assessee at time of filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
