TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (10) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ises of the assessee was searched by the Department on 25th July, 1970 and certain books and statements were seized. These were subjected to scrutiny by the Department. In a statement found among the seized books was the working of Rs. 47,412 the profit shown in the chitties. Briefly, the statement was of receipts which are as follows :— Receipts—Veethapalisa 18,728.24 Sundry income being undivided Veethapalisa 19.70 Chitty commission 1,42,250.00 . 1,60,997.94 Less : Expenses 1,13,585.42 . 47,412.52 After the seizure of the books, the assessee filed another statement in which the chitty commission was shown at Rs. 84,930, veethapalisa Rs. 2,548 and a new item of receipt interest Rs. 32,000. The net....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....natly proceedings were initiated and referred to the IAC. The IAC after narrating the findings of the ITO held that there was concealment inasmuch as the assessee had overstated the expenditure under salaries, canvassing commission and bonus as also filed to account for the income from interest of Rs. 36,705. He, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee took up two preliminary objections. The first objection was with regard to the jurisdiction and the second, with regard to limitation. Regarding jurisdiction, it was submitted that the assessee had filed only the return in which he had declared an income or Rs. 51,525. The ultimate assessed figure was Rs. 56,950 and, therefore, if at all there is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome vested in him already. 4. The second ground is regarding limitation. The contention of the assessee's counsel is that the assessment order having been passed on 27th March, 1972, the penalty order should also have been passed by 27th March, 1974. The order passed by the IAC on 18th Jan., 1975 is, therefore, barred by limitation. The main ground for this objection seems to be that since the return was filed on 16th April, 1970, the law on that date should prevail. We are unable to accept this contention also. It is now well settled that the law on limitation is merely a procedural law. In Mitra's Limitation Act, 16th Edition page 16, it is state that the general rule is that a statute of limitation is retrospective in operation and go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'authority'. There can be no question of prescription as this authority is not transferred to the ITO but vested in him for due fulfilment of his functions. The right was that the authority to complete the penalty proceedings within a period given and that right by the amendment in 1970 had been enlarged and some extra time has been given for the same purpose. There is no corresponding right invested in the assessee to get any proceedings completed within a period of time as determined before the amendment. 5. It was next contended that there was no concealment at all. The original return was filed unaccompanied by any statement. Subsequently, the books of account were seized. It was only after wards that the assessee could prepare a st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nally assessed and returned. The assessee's counsel said he will have no objection for the levy of penalty based on these two figures. 6. We have examined the two statements. In one statement, no doubt, the assessee had claimed an expenditure of Rs. 1,13,585. It contained the three items i.e., salary, bonus and commission about which there had been a discussion by the ITO. In the revised statement, the total expenses claimed is Rs. 99,718 the difference between these two sets of claim for expenditure is about Rs. 14,000. Apart from the three items, there is not much of discussion in the assessment order or in the IAC's order with regard to the claim of the expenditure under the second statement. Even if there was some inflation in the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the books warranted. The Departmental Representative wanted us to consider these two as two separate issues. We are unable to do so. The intention to conceal must be borne out of the facts of the case. Initially, he had filed the return showing commission receipts of Rs. 1.4 lakhs. Had he stopped with showing lesser commission and had he ignored the receipts from interest, the case of the Department would have been fully made out. But he did not. He showed another receipt of Rs. 32,000. This was done by him after going through the account books which were lying with the Department. We think that the obvious connection of these two receipts, interest and commission both recorded in the same set of books lying with the Department cannot be....