9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (1) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposited which were the home savings of the Petitioner from out of pin-money, gifts and presents on ceremonial occasions as birth of children, marriages, Mundan, Janeu and other ceremonies etc. But the Petitioner is not in a position to establish by positive evidence the exact source." Accordingly, the assessee prayed that the assessments may be reopened so as to include the income offered by the assessee in the disclosure petition. The assessee also specifically prayed that no penal action may be taken against her. 3. The Commr., however, did not accept the disclosure petition on the ground that the assessee did not disclose fully her income from all sources and some amounts were still left which had been found out by the ITO. 4. Thereupon, the ITO initiated proceedings u/s 147(a) by issuance of notices u/s 148 and reopened the assessments. These reopened assessments were all made on the same day on 21st May, 1975. In response to the notice issued by the ITO the assessee filed revised returns showing the incomes which were disclosed in the disclosure petition. Certain other amounts were also added which were not originally taken into account at the original assessments. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The ITO rejected the assessee's explanation and levied penalties of Rs. 11,534, Rs. 2,291, Rs. 24,270, Rs. 4,131 and Rs. 1,862 for the five assessment years respectively. 7. The assessee carried the matter in appeals before the AAC. The AAC elaborately discussed the matter and thought that so far as the amounts disclosed by the assessee are concerned in the disclosure petition no penalty is impossible. Accordingly, he reduced the penalties to Rs. 1,534, Rs. 2,188 Rs. 2,182 for Rs. 2,293 and Rs. 253 respectively for the five assessment years. 8. The Revenue is aggrieved by the reduction of penalties by the AAC and the assessee is aggrieved by the penalties retained by him. 9. The ld. Deptl. Rep. in support of the appeals filed by the Revenue contended that when once the assessee made a disclosure in her petition offering the amounts as her income, it is not necessary for the Revenue to lead any evidence to show that those amounts are concealed income for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c). He very strongly relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Banaras Chemical Factory vs. CIT reported in (1977) 108 ITR 96 (All). He assailed the reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the ITO and confirmed by the AAC is in respect of the share income from the two firms, M/s. Suresh Chandra Vinod Kumar and M/s. G.N. Seth amp; Bros, for the asst. yr. 1968-69. Admittedly, the share incomes were not shown at the time of filing the original returns but they were included by the ITO when the original assessments were completed. But the assessee stated before the lower authorities that on 2nd June, 1969 by a letter the assessee requested for the inclusion of the share income for the concerned assessment year from the two firms on the ground that by inadvertence they were not shown originally. In other words, the assessee's plea was that there was no non-disclosure by the assessee and it is only the assessee that came forward to divulge to the Department the share incomes from the two firms. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the same. The ld. Deptl. Rep. relying on the orders of the authorities below contended that the assessee had not been able to establish that any letter was sent as alleged by her. Therefore, the first point to be considered is whether the assessee brought to the notice of the ITO by her letter dated 2nd June, 1969 about the inclusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equently no penalty is imposable in relation to the same. 13. Then comes the share income from M/s. Bhola Nath Shambhu Nath. The assessee while filing returns of income disclosed that she has got income from M/s. Bhola Nath Shambhu Nath but she has not been able to give the actual share income perhaps because she was not able to get the particulars. The ITO noted this fact and included the share income at nil subject to rectification u/s 154. From the assessment order for the year 1966-67 it transpires that the ITO mentioned as "Undetermined share from M/s. Bhola Nath Shambhu Nath taken subject to rectification u/s 154 nil". Similar is the position for other years. It is, therefore, contended by the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee did not conceal any particulars and, therefore no penalty is leviable. The ld. Deptl. Rep. relied on the orders of the authorities below. But we are inclined to agree with the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee. There is no concealment at all. The assessee disclosed the fact that she was a partner in the firm but her share income was not known. The ITO noticed this and accordingly assessed it at nil subject to rectification. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years the penalties should be with reference to the tax sought to be avoided. In calculating the penalties the ITO will have in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mansukhlal Bros vs. CIT, Bombay reported in (1969) 73 ITR 546 (SC). For the asst. yrs. 1968 - 69 and onwards, the penalties should be on the basis of the law in force from 1st April, 1968 as admittedly for these years the returns were filed after that date. The minimum penalty leviable will be equivalent to the amount in respect of which there is concealment. The ITO will also impose minimum penalties. We, therefore,, uphold the penalties for the asst. yrs. 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 to the extent of Rs. 22, 193, Rs. 1,932 and Rs. 1,862 respectively. 19. In the result, the penalties for the asst. yr. 1966-67 and 1967-68 are reduced and the ITO is directed to recompute minimum penalties as indicated above. The penalties for the asst.yrs.1968- 69 and 1969-70 are reduced. Penalty for the asst. yr. 1970-71 is confirmed. The appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue for the asst. yrs. 1966-67, 1967- 68, 1968-69 1969-70 are treated as allowed in part. The appeal of the Revenue for the asst. yr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
