9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (10) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the asst. yr. 1965-66. The original returns for the asst. yrs. 1960-61 to 1964-65 were filed on 28th Dec.,1960, 20th Sept.,1962, 16th Nov.,1962, 5th Sept., 1964 and 5th Sept., 1964 respectively. The ITO, while completing the assessment for the asst. yr. 1965-66, noticed that the assessee has not disclosed the income from two properties. Consequently, he included the income from two properties in the asst. yr. 1965-66 and he also reopened the assessment for the asst. yrs. 1960-61 to 1964-65 under s. 147(A) of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee, pursuant to notice under s., 148, filed the returns for the asst. yrs. 1960-61 to 1964-65 on 19th Nov., 1969 for these years in which he disclosed higher income from properties. The ITO completed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the penalties had been levied by invoking the Expln. to s. 271(1)(C). The assessee had discharged the onus required of him for rebutting the presumption raised by the explanation by submitting detailed computation of Income from property and profession. The assessee relied on the cases of CIT vs. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.(3), CIT vs. Sankerson & Co.(1), CIT vs. Anwar Ali (2), CIT vs. Scindia Steam Navisgation Co. Ltd.(3), M.M. Muthuwappa's (4), case, Sundermul & Co. Case, Narrondas Manordas, case approved by Supreme Court in 33 I.T.R. 182, CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji and Tribunal Order in ITA. Nos. 164 to 169 (Bom)/1974-75 dt. 28th Jan., 1975 of Bombay Bench, C Bombay and also in the case of Bharat Nidhi Ltd. And urged that the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies were sustainable under s. 271(1)(C) of the Act. Shri D'Souza further stated that the ITO imposed the penalties under the substantive provision of s. 271(1)(c) and the AAC was not justified to consider the penalties under Expln. To s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. He accordingly urged that the penalty orders passed by the ITO should be maintained. The assessee's counsel filed a Paper Book containing 18 pages. The counsel relying on the Paper Book urged that he was not supplied with the assessment orders for the years under dispute and therefore he could not explain his case. As the assessment orders were not supplied, he submitted that the penalty orders passed by the ITO are liable to be cancelled. The Counsel further stated that the assessee w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the original returns. The principle that in the case of re-assessment concealment is to be determined with relation to the original return, reliance could be placed in 89 I.T.T. 27 which followed the decision of the Supreme Court in 51 I.T.R. 2995. 6. We have come to the conclusion in the preceding paragraph that the assessee concealed the income for the asst. yrs. 1960-61 to 1964-65 for which returns were filed on or before 1st April, 1968, 1996 The returns under s. 148 were filed for the asst. yrs. 1960-61 to 1964-65 after 1st April, 1968 i.e. on 19th Nov., 1969, the question arises how the penalties should be quantified. Whether, according to the provisions of the Act as they stood when the original returns were filed or in accordance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
