TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (5) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come on 26-5-1984 declaring an income of Rs. 30,000. Inasmuch as the aforesaid return had been filed after the completion of the original assessment the same was regularised by issue of a notice under section 148. The assessee in fact stated in writing by means of communication dated 26-5-1984 that the return filed earlier be treated as one in compliance to the notice under section 148. 3. In the aforesaid return income had been shown from house property, business and interest aggregating Rs. 30,000. However, the said return was not supported by any documents and the Income-tax Officer in fact observed that the income returned did not represent the " correct income " of the assessee. A further fact noted by the Income-tax Officer was that no ledger had been maintained as none was available. The Assessing Officer subsequently referred to the order passed by him for assessment year 1980-81 and rejecting the various contentions raised on behalf of the assessee he proceeded to compute the taxable income at Rs. 64,690 as follows :--- " Capital as on 31-3-1982...... ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; ------ 4. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee came up in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who reduced the taxable income to Rs. 32,700 by re-calculating the figures of capital as on 31-3-1981 and 31-3-1982 vis-a-vis the figures appearing in the assessment order and which we have reproduced in an earlier part of our order. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also sustained an addition of Rs. 8,500 made by the Income-tax Officer on account of household expenses as relevant ground of appeal was withdrawn at the time of hearing. 5. It may be mentioned at this stage that the Income-tax Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings which culminated in an assessment order on 29-9-1984 initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and which ultimately led to the impugned penalty which took into account the facts stated in the assessment order. The assessee's arguments in the course of the penalty proceedings was primarily on the non-levy as assessment had been made on " estimated basis " whereas the Income-tax Officer laid stress on the search and seizure operations undertaken after the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t a nominal figure of Rs. 7,250 and the subsequent search and seizure operations when duplicate cash book and other incriminating documents were found and seized. A reference was also made to the entries in the duplicate cash book and documents and there being no corresponding entries in the original books of account maintained by the assessee for tax purposes. It was further stated that it was only as a result of the raid that the assessee subsequently filed another return of income on 26-5-1984 declaring much higher income of Rs. 30,000 and the said return being invalid in the eyes of law was regularised by issue of a notice under section 148. The learned Departmental Representative also referred to the subsequent assessment order computing taxable income at Rs. 64,690 and its reduction to a figure of Rs. 32,790 and the latter figure having become final as there was no further appeal to the Tribunal by the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative also stressed on the fact that the figure of capital as on 31-3-1981 and 31-3-1982 was on estimate basis. The following further submissions were also made by the learned Departmental Representative with reference to the material....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e figure of capital as no ledger had been maintained. Further no details had been given in the assessment order for arriving at a figure of Rs. 1,90,970 as the capital on 31-3-1982 ; (iii) In the quantum appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had reduced the said figure to Rs. 1,58,983 as there was apparently a mistake in calculation in the assessment order. Further the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the quantum appeal had become final as no second appeal had been filed by the Department ; (iv) The Income-tax Officer in the assessment order had not mentioned the particulars of income which had been concealed by the assessee ; and (v) That on the same set of facts the cancellation of penalty by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 had been confirmed by the Tribunal whereas in some of the other assessment years, namely, 1975-76 to 1978-79 the Income-tax officer himself had dropped the penalties and so was the position in assessment years 1981-82 and 1983-84. 12. On the basis of the aforesaid submission the learned counsel urged that the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) cancelling the penalty be confirm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he light of day only after the search and seizure operations. In view of this distinguishing feature, we are inclined to decide the present appeal de hors the view earlier expressed by the Tribunal. 15. As already discussed earlier, this is a case in which the assessment had been completed on 4-10-1982 on a total income of Rs. 7,250 and as a result of the subsequent search and seizure operations conducted on 4-2-1984 various incriminating documents as also duplicate cash book were found and seized. It was only pursuant to the raid that the assessee on 26-5-1984 filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 30,000 and the said return being regularised by issue of notice under section 148. It was further found by the Assessing Officer that the return filed on 26-5-1984 was not supported by any documents and further no ledger was available. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to take the figure of opening capital as on 31-3-1981 as also the figure of capital as on 31-3-1982 the first as agreed to by assessee in assessment year 1978-79 and the latter as per the duplicate cash book/documents found during the course of the raid. The difference came to Rs. 56,190 to which the Asses....