1990 (9) TMI 146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of convenience these appeals are disposed of together by a consolidated order. 2. Smt. G.Hemalata, wife of the assessee, was partner in the firm Shri Mahalakshmi Boiled Rice & Groundnut Oil Mill Co., Machilipatnam along with the assessee. Vide prescription of section 64(1) of the Act, the share income of the assessee's wife was includible in the assessment of the assessee. For the relevant asst. years income includible under section 64 was not included. The original assessments were completed on the basis of returns filed by the assessee without inclusion of wife's share income under section 64(1) of the Act. Subsequently the assessment was re-opened and in re-assessment, the income was included under section 64(1). According to Income-t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ced his reliance on the ratio laid down in the case of CIT v. S.S. Gulati [1989] 179 ITR 62 (Punj. & Har.). 4. Shri B. Shyam Sundar, learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. It was submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that it is a well accepted fact that ignorance of law is no excuse. Since assessee failed to apply the prescription laid down under section 64, this amounted to concealment and penalty was rightly imposed by invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c). Learned Departmental Representative placed his reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P.K. Kochammu Amma, Peroke [1980] 125 ITR 624. It was also submitted by the lear....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sstt. CST [1980] 124 ITR 15, 18. 6. There were conflicting decisions in regard to the proposition whether the provisions contained in section 271(1)(c) apply only to concealment of his income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Smt. P.K. Kochammu Amma set at rest this controversy to the effect that the assessee's failure to include, in his return, tangible income under section 64 attracts the applicability of section 271(1)(c). It is nowhere mentioned that in all the circumstances where tangible income has not been included, penalty should be imposed. As a matter of fact Supreme Court in Smt. P.K. Kochammu Amma's case deleted the penalty. We have also noticed that in the case of S.S. Gulati it was held that where the assessee and ....