TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (4) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorities below for imposing the penalty are these. The assessee is the proprietor of the concern styled M/s Sita Ram Anil Kumar Saraf carrying on sarafa business at Pilibhit. For the year under consideration he filed his return originally on 31st July, 1975 on a total income Rs. 8,730 constituted of the following items: . Rs. Property income (SOP) 200 Business income 7,000 Total 7,200 Less: L.I.P. 2,470 Balance 4,730 Agricultural income 4,000 Total 8,730 Then, on 18th July, 1977, a revised return was filed on a total income of Rs. 13,310 constituted of the following items: . Rs. Property income (SOP) 200 Business income 4,407 Amount surrendered 10,000 Total 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was explained to him that Horilal's whereabouts were not known to the assessee since after completing the contract for which he was engaged, that person had gone away from the locality. The ITO, however, appears to have insisted upon Horilal being produced before him. It was in these circumstances that the assessee on 31st Jan, 1978 offered the amount of Rs. 10,000 for assessment pleading at the same time that he should not be subjected to any penalty for concealment with regard to this amount. 4. With regard to the other amount of Rs. 10,000 which was surrendered in the revised return filed on 18th July, 1977 the assessee's case before the authorities below was that this amount was constituted of the following cash credits: 1. Smt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as guilty of concealment of these two amounts in the original return. What appears to have impressed the ITO was that the revised return in which the cash credits were surrendered was filed on 18th July, 1977. Now, before this was done by the assessee he had been served with a notice u/s 143(2) for appearance on 16th July, 1977. On that date there was no compliance. From these circumstances the ITO inferred that it was only for fear of detection that the revised return was filed, and not that the assessee discovered a mistake or omission innocently made in the original return. As regards the other amount of Rs. 10,000, the ITO was persuaded to hold that the omission to disclose this amount as income was also deliberate and it was only becau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of having to produce his relations for cross-examination on the small mounts which the had lent to him. We have no hesitation in holding, after taking into consideration all in facts and circumstances, that the disclosure of the amount of Rs. 10,000 in the revised return was entirely a voluntary act on the part of the assessee. 8. It is on these facts that we have to consider whether the assessee was liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c), is quite clear that the Explanation to sub-s. (1) of s. 271(1)(c) (as it stood prior to its amendment w.e.f. 1st April, 1976) applied to the case inasmuch as the income declared in the original return was less than 80% of the income finally assessed. The question, therefore, is whether the failure was due t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The next case relied upon in CIT, Lucknow vs. Swarup Cold Storage & General Mills (1982) 26 CTR (All) 273 : (1982) 136 ITR 435 (All). This was a case in which the assessee did not produce the account books during the assessment proceedings and, therefore could not justify its assertion that the return was made on the basis of regular books of account. The High Court found that the Tribunal did not refer to this aspect of the case and decided in the assesee's favour merely because no specific concealment had been pointed out. It was on these considerations that the High Court held that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus placed by the Explanation upon it, and there was no material before the Tribunal which could justify the deleti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne, 1976. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return on 12th Dec,1978 in which an amount of Rs. 6,000 was disclosed. Then in the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee agreed to an addition of Rs. 5,000 to be made in the assessment. It is with reference to these two amounts of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 5,000 respectively that the penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) was imposed by the ITO in the amount or Rs. 3,500 and was sustained by the AAC. 11. Now, as regards the amount of Rs. 6,000 this was credited to the assessee's capital account as realisations from sale of trees. The assessee's case before us in regard to this amount was voluntarily disclosed in the revised return by the assessee, and not because there was any detection of conceal....