TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (12) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Padampur to the extent of Rs. 3,868. Accordingly the Income Tax Officer initiated proceedings under s. 147(a) read with s. 148 of the Act. The assessee filed revised return on 5th March, 1969 declaring an income of Rs. 11,803. The Income Tax Officer completed the assessment and at the time of completing the assessment, he initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271 (1) (a) of Act. 3. In pursuance of show cause notice, no body responded and consequently the Income Tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,000 under s. 271(1) (c) of the Act. 4. For the assessment year 1962-63 original assessment was completed on 30th March, 1966 on a total income of Rs. 31,180. The Income Tax Officer later on came to know that the assessee has not disclos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance of probabilities which would go to show that there was nothing to suggest that the assessee in conscious disregard of its obligation failed to disclose the correct income. 7. The learned departmental representative supported the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and contended that the assessee failed to disclose share income from the said two firms and as such it was a case of concealment of income by the assessee. It was also contended that the returned income was less than that 80% of the finally assessed income and as such it was for the assessee to show that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee in not returning the assessed income. According to the learned departmental representa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear that the assessee has always been under the bonafide impression that the income from the said two firms was not to be included in its returns but it was to be included in the hands of the partners directly. This impression was not baseless because in earlier years the income from the two firms was directly disclosed by the partners and the same was assessed in their respective returns. From the aforesaid facts, it would be clear that there were preponderance of probabilities which would go to show that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee in not returning the assessed income, in the years of the account. There is also nothing to show that the assessee in conscious disregard of its obligation failed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee did not file the return in pursuance of notice under s.148 of the Act. It was also contended that the assessee has always been under the bonafide belief that the income from the said two firms was not assessable in the hands of the assessee and as such the assessee did not file the return as required within the time. Later, on, when the assessee came to know that in quantum matter the income was to be assessed in the hands of the assessee then the assessee filed the return. Thus it was contended that there were reasonable causes which prevented the assessee form filing the return in time. The learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not convinced with the explanation. Accordingly, he agreed with the learned Income Tax Officer....