9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had been earlier assessed at Raichur (in Karnataka) and in the returns filed upto 1970-71, the same jewellery had been shown by the assessee. the assessment proceedings were transferred from Raichur to Bombay in 1972-73, and on the basis of the earlier record, the WTO enquired and ultimately added Rs. 23,117 towards the value thereof. Consequent to the directions given in the assessment, penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(c) were initiated. 3. To the show cause notice issued, the assessee gave an explanation. It was stated that the tax consultant had wrongly shown the value of the jewellery in the earlier returns filed at Raichur and that there was no jewellery actually belonging to him. The jewellery was the property of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1981, wherein it was held that the addition could be sustained only to the extent of Rs. 35,000. The assessee had filed a Miscellaneous Application in M.A. No. 24/Bom/1982 contending that there were some mistakes apparent on the face of the record and the said application was disposed of on 23rd Aug., 1982. The Tribunal found that there were rectifiable mistakes and accordingly passed an order holding that the assessee's explanation was acceptable substantially and that the addition could only be to the extent of Rs. 9,000. Dealing with this aspect, the AAC remarks: "In support of his statement, he has furnished a copy of the ITAT's order dt. 12th Oct., 1981 and 23rd Aug., 1982 bearing Nos. 277/Bom/1981 and H.A. No. 198/Bom/82 relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred by the assessee from the assessment passed under s. 16(3) making an addition of Rs. 23,117. Now, if really the assessee had jewellery as declared in the returns filed upto 1970-71, then he could have claimed benefit while explaining the jewellery found at the search conducted on 30th Oct., 1974. It is a fact that the assessee had not claimed this while explaining the jewellery in the assessment proceedings for 19975-76 and this is clear from the orders of the Tribunal copies of which are in the compilation. This is a circumstance clear enough to indicate that on account of some mistake presumably on the part of the tax consultant, that jewellery had been shown in the return filed earlier to 1970-71. If really the assessee had jewell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
