TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (4) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 2,500. The assessment was completed on 20th Dec., 1972 itself under the summary method provided in s. 143(1) of IT Act, 1961. Of course, the assessment order was communicated to the assessee only on 30th Jan. 1973. But along with the completion of assessment, the ITO had directed his Inspector to make an investigation about his income and wealth. The Income-tax Inspector met the assessee on 17th Jan., 1973 and asked for some details of course, the assessee seems to have furnished such details without any hesitation to the Income-tax Inspector. Then on 23rd Jan., 1973, the assessee voluntarily furnished another revised return, perhaps, not knowing that his Income-tax assessment had been completed on the first return. in the relevant accounting year he has received as fees from the Kerala State Electricity Board a sum of Rs. 18,650 and another Rs. 6,535, in the aggregate a sum of Rs. 25,185. These two receipts were included in the revised return. The order sanctioning the payment of Rs. 18,650 is as follows: "KERALASTATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ABSTRACT EAP Cases of 1968 at District Court. Kottayam-Heard and disposed of Advocates fee-Sanctioned. B.O. Law. IV-20722/69 Date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. 60/69 30.00 2. 42/69 200.00 3. 61/69 90.00 4. 27/69 125.00 5. 69/69 150.00 6. 58/69 500.00 7. 15/69 500.00 8. 7/69 500.00 9. 17/69 150.00 10. 19/69 30.00 11. 22/69 220.00 12. 34/69 500.00 13. 40/69 500.00 14. 43/69 500.00 15. 44/69 500.00 16. 48/69 500.00 17. 49/69 500.00 18. 52/69 500.00 19. 161/69 290.00 20. 20/69 100.00 21. 41/69 50.00 22. 51/69 50.00 23. 135/69 50.00 . Total Rs. 6,535.00 The Superintending Engineer, Generation and Transmission Circle, Poovanthuruthu will arrange the payment debiting the expenditure to the work concerned. The amount covered by the cases pertaining to the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division will be transfer debited to the concerned accounts of Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Pallim. (By Order of the Board) Sd/- (G. PREMACHANDRAN NAIR), ASSISTANT SECRETARY". This amount is seen credited in the same bank account in Aug., 1971. 4. Then further revised return was furnished on 21st Feb., 1973 where the salie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of imagination can we think that it is forgetfulness that made him to do so. If he omitted to consider it in making his estimate it can only be with an intention to conceal the income. That it was an accidental or a bonafide omission cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. That he did not look into or had no occasion to look into the bank account where this money is deposited, which is mainly a suiter's account, where clients, moneys are generally deposited is a films arguments. In any event, the explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961, will be attracted because the omission to consider while making an estimate for return of professional income the receipts from such an important client is nothing but gross negligence. No ordinary "man" in his ordinary senses will under such circumstances forget or omit to take into consideration the receipt from an important client who pays the largest amount of fee to the assessee in making an estimate of the professional income. So concealment in this case is proved by direct and circumstantial evidence as well as by explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act 1961. 8. There is another argument for the assessee. The recei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that date. So also we cannot accept the argument of the assessee that the fee accrues as and when the case for which the fee is paid is over. In cases like this where the Board retains a counsel the fee accrues only when the Board, the client, sanctions the payment. So strictly speaking Rs. 18,650 is not the income of this year but the income of the previous asst. yr. 1971-72. But this finding cannot help the assessee to resist a finding of concealment because the other receipt from the Board for Rs. 6,535 is definitely income which accrued in the relevant accounting year. That accrual and receipt had been omitted to be considered while making the estimate for original return. So definitely there is concealment. 10. But this finding that Rs. 18,650 is not the income of this year is important so far as the quantum of penalty is concerned. The quantum of penalty depends on the amount of income concealed. So we have to find out what is the amount of income concealed. if we were to say that the assessee concealed a certain amount of income it must also be the income of that year. So the question is whether, having without any dispute assessed Rs. 18,650 as income of the assessee fo....