TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (1) TMI 140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, as they had not disclosed interest income received by their respective wives which was added in their total income under s. (iii) of the Income-tax Act. In both the cases the income added under s. 64 (iii) was Rs. 672 for asst. yr. 1972-73. Penalty of Rs. 680 each was levied by the ITO and confirmed by the A.A.C. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted before us that there was no co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me became includible under s. 64(iii) of the Act, though they had not themselves earned it. In these circumstances and looking to the fact that the assessees had declared sizable income for the asst. yr. in question, we agree with the contention of the assessee' learned counsel that there was no intention on the part of the assesses to suppress these items of income. 5. The authorities below have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... total income. This surely would have been an ideal solution but usually so much caution is not taken by anyone. This default may, be attributed to lack of proper legal advice but in no case can it be said that this failure to file revised returns could be equated with conscious concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as contemplated by s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Moreover, we think tha....