9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment stage has not even been discussed by the learned CIT(A) and thus the penalty has wrongly been confirmed by him. 3. That even otherwise the assessee duly substantiated the explanation it gave in respect of receipts and thus the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) has also wrongly been applied." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee-doctor is a child specialist. The IT Department conducted a search under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961, at the business and residential premises of the assessee on 26th Sept., 1986, during the course of which certain history-sheets of the patients and indoor registers were found and seized. It was found that the assessee had shown the professional receipts in the indoor register at Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of his taxable income. A notice under s. 274 r/w s. 271(1)(c) was issued to the assessee. In response to the said notice, it was stated by the assessee that he has not concealed the particulars of his income. It was also stated that the additions were made purely on estimate basis. It was further explained that full and complete details of each item were furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO did not find any merit in the explanation given by the assessee and consequently he imposed a penalty of Rs. 12,800 under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld that penalty for the reasons stated in paras 4 and 5 of the impugned order. Before us, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntal Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is true that this Tribunal vide its order, dt. 25th April, 1996, in ITA No. 1117(Asr)/1990 has reduced the addition from Rs. 32,000 to Rs. 25,000 only. While deciding the quantum appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal took the view that the addition of Rs. 32,000 made by the AO and which was confirmed by the CIT(A) was on higher side. On a perusal of the assessment order dt. 21st Dec., 1988, passed under s. 143(3), it would be clear that total receipts as per Indoor Register have been worked out at Rs. 1,30,850, whereas the said receipts have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Hon'ble High Court further observed that Expln. 1 does not make assessment order conclusive evidence that the amount assessed was in fact the income of the assessee. The Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Metal Products of India (1985) 45 CTR (P H) 45 : (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P H) held that merely because the addition has been made on estimate under the first proviso to s. 145(1) of the Act by adopting the view that the gross profit shown in the books of accounts was too low as there were defects in the manner of accounting employed cannot be automatically lead to the conclusion that there was failure to return the correct income by means of fraud or gross or wilful neglect. In the ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
