TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (4) TMI 151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1)(b) Rs. 15,000 946 273(b) Rs. 25,000 (as reduced by the AAC) 2. The facts of the case fall within a very narrow compass. In response to a notice under s. 148, which was issued as the assessee had not filed any return by the due date i.e. 30th Sept., 1971, the assessee filed a return on 9th May, 1972, showing income of Rs. 2,500 from brokerage on the sale of car. The returned income was much below the taxable limit. The ITO issued, on several occasion, notices under s. 142(1), requiring production of books of accounts but accounts were not produced on the plea that they were not maintained. The ITO also, after obtaining the previous approval of the IAC issued a notice under s. 142(1) dt. 29th Oct., 1973, which was served on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the addition of Rs. 20,000 but upheld the estimated addition of Rs. 1 lakh in respect of the shows conducted for which the licence fee was paid to the Tirunelveli municipality. In the course of the penalty order, the IAC has specifically stated that the assessee's representative had presented before the Commissioner a diary indicating the collections and expenses of skilled games at Tirunelveli relating to the period 6th July, 1970 to 19th July, 1970 and 10th Sept., 1970 to 20th Sept., 1970 and according to the same the collections amounted to Rs. 1,23,560 and the excess of income over expenditure was Rs. 41,142. We specifically enquired of the learned counsel for the assessee whether there was any dispute regarding the statement by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e extent of Rs. 20,000 in any view of the matter. The learned counsel also submitted that even for the balance no penalty was exigible and in any view of the matter, according to him, the penalty as imposed by the IAC was excessive and if in respect of any amount penalty was held to be exigible it should be nothing more than the minimum. 5. The learned departmental representative, on the other hand, stressed the fact that the diary was not produced before the ITO and this was a case where the assessee had shown income of only Rs. 2,500 when the admitted surplus was as large as Rs. 41,142. According to him, the show was conducted only by the asse4ssee and not by his wife and this had been established conclusively by the Revenue and a dete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tation in holding that there was a clear concealment of Rs. 41,142 in the present case especially as the diaries etc. were not produced at the assessment age before the ITO. Penalty is, therefore, exigible under s. 271(1)(c). We shall fix the quantum of penalty a little later. 7. Coming to the penalty under s. 271(1)(a) it is clear that the assessee had income very much above the taxable limit. The assessee, therefore, should have voluntarily filed the return which was not done. This is not a case where the assessee could not have anticipated that the income would have been above the taxable limit, the income being as much as Rs. 41,142 The delay from 1st Oct., 1971 to 9th May, 1972, i.e. a period of seven completed months is unexplained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the nature referred to it should have been possible to furnish the statement of assets and liabilities, which has not been done There is, therefore, default under s. 142(1) for which penalty under s. 271(1)(b) is clearly justified, Here again we would deal with the quantum of penalty to be imposed later. 9. Coming to the penalty under s. 273(b) there was no assessment made prior to 31st March, 1971 and, therefore, the assessee should have voluntarily paid advance tax. It has not been done. It is amply clear there was income very much in excess of the limit over which advance tax was payable voluntarily. The default in not filing the estimate is established and penalty under s. 273(b) is attracted. Here again we shall deal with the qua....