TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (5) TMI 107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... return showing a total income of Rs. 1,17,890. On the examination of books of accounts, it was noticed that the assessee had introduced a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 by inflating sale receipts and correspondingly making the adjustment in purchase price for an identical amount. In cash book also the sale value of taxable rice on 23rd Jan., 1984 which amounted to Rs. 2,591.25 was shown at Rs. 52,591.25 and on 24th Jan., 1984 the sale amount of Rs. 5,190 was inflated to Rs. 55,910. The ITO also noticed the following corrections in the account book: (1)The purchase price as per bill No. 352 of 3rd Jan., 1984 of P.K. Samuel & Co. for Rs. 3,277 has been inflated to Rs. 13,277 in the ledger. (2)The purchase price of 12 bags of rice for Rs. 3,277 as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....273(2)(c)of the Act. Hence, these further appeals before us. 4. According to the assessee, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c)and under s. 273(2)(c)of the IT Act, 1961, holding that the revised return filed would not fall under the Amnesty Scheme. It was further contended by the assessee that there is no variation as between the income returned originally and income estimated for advance tax purposes and it was only on account of the revised return offering additional income being filed, under the Amnesty Scheme, the variation arose and having regard to the various circulars issued under the Scheme, the penalty should not have been levied. It is not correct to say that the assessee filed the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced before us the order sheet entries of the assessment record. Relying on these documents, he built up an argument that this is a fit case where the penalties under ss. 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(c)are attracted. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the same. The point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the levy of penalty under ss. 271(1)(c) and 273 (2)(c) are sustainable in law. The fact that the assessee filed a return of income on 31st July, 1984 showing an income of Rs. 1,17,890, and thereafter the assessee filed a revised return on 28th Aug., 1986 offering an additional income of Rs. 1 lakh is also not in dispute. According to the assessee, the return was filed only after the discussion with the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was made as agreed, the question of imposing penalty does not arise at all. Then the question to be decided is whether the addition was made as agreed between the parties. According to us there is some force in the contention of the learned representative of the assessee that the above additions have been made as agreed between the parties. For this, we can rely on the order sheet entries of the assessment record, which reads as under: "Shri S. Krishnamoorthy, C.A., Quilon, attended. Books of accounts are produced. Cash introduction and notices on certain dates. Requires detailed scrutiny. sd. 31.7.1986 Reposted for 19th Aug., 1986 sd. 31.7.1986 Shri S. Krishnamoorthy, C.A., Quilon, attended. Books produced. Purchase i....