2000 (4) TMI 172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7th March, 1992, whereby he deleted the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c). 2. The assessee has returned the income at Rs. 4,82,520 whereas the AO by estimating the net profit at 12.5 per cent worked out profit at Rs. 6,90,722, resulting in an addition of Rs. 2,08,197. Accordingly the AO levied the penalty as aforesaid holding that there was a clear-cut case of concealment of income inasmuch as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and that there is a concealment of income. He has contended that the penalty has not been levied for concealment of receipts. As against this the learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that all the contract receipts were disclosed before the authorities and that the difference (addition) is due to estimation of inc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d on record, the Jaipur Bench of Tribunal has held that no penalty for concealment can be levied for application of higher g.p. rate unless there is positive finding of concealment of income based on concrete evidence. In Asstt. CIT vs. Karachi Kampatwala (1981) 127 ITR 421 (All), a copy of which is placed on record, it has been held that penalty under s. 271(1)(c) is imposable with reference to e....