9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inaccurate particulars of such income against the assessee? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the explanation offered by the assessee in the course of penalty proceedings is of such a nature that it takes the assessee out of the ambit of the Expln. to s. 271(1)(c)?" Inasmuch as, in or opinion, the above said questions do not call for reference, we are unable to accept the request of the Commr. on the basis of the following facts and reasons given hereinafter. 2. The assessment year involved is 1973-74 for which the assessee, who is an Individual, had rental income from property and plying of trucks. He resided in his own house. Against his declared inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee came in second appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty in the followings words: "7. After hearing the parties and closely perusing the evidence before us, we are inclined to accept Sh. Gupta's contention. The case does not have any precedence and under very peculiar circumstances the assessee's voluntary disclosure came to be rejected on technical grounds. The assessee at no stage had accepted that the addition of Rs. 25,000 was his income, much less income of the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal. The assessee's conduct of submitting disclosure petition in itself could not have the effect of crucifying him under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act also. According to us, the assessee's inability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above projected difference of Rs. 85,959 though might have been partly absorbed by the assessee for his personal use but in few years, particularly in 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1970-71 the difference between the returned and the assessed income has been very substantial, the difference for the asst. yr. 1970-71 alone exceeded Rs. 20,000 and, if under such circumstances the assessee was given benefit of Rs. 10,000 as intangible addition in respect of the asst. yr. 1971-72, the assessee's contention for 1973-74 that further amount of Rs. 25,000 was available for adjustment, could not be said to be absurd or devoid of consideration. Therefore, irrespective of the assessee's having accepted the assessment, we find no case for the charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
