TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (7) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. For the said assessment years the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, filed its returns of income on 9th Dec., 1971 and 14th Dec., 1971 respectively. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings for the delay in filing the returns. For the assessment year 1968-69 the assessee had explained before the Income-tax Officer that its income as per the return was Rs. 5,109 which was below the taxable limit for a Hindu Undivided Family and due to the bonafide belief that it was not liable to income-tax the return was not filed in time. As regards the assessment year 1969-70 the assessee explained before the Income-tax Officer that its income was about Rs. 10,800 and odd and was marginal and tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... We find considerable force in the submission made by the assessee's representative. The assessee could not anticipate the additions that may be made while completing the assessment. In fact in this case we find from the records that certain additions were made on estimate basis by the Income-tax Officer and that the same was modified by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal. In this view of the matter we hold that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return for the assessment year 1968-69. We, therefore, cancel the penalty for this year. 5. For the assessment year 1969-70 the explanation offered by the assessee was that its income was about Rs. 10,800 and odd and that he did not anticipate the additions that c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the assessment year 1968-69. The Income-tax Officer imposed the penalty of Rs. 6,804 on the ground that the assessee omitted to admit income for one source, that is from M/s. Palaniandavar & Co., Dharampuri of Rs. 3,000 also on the ground that there was a credit in the sales tax account. Before the Income-tax Officer the assessee had explained that due to quarrel among the members of the family the omission had occurred and that a revised return including the income from this source was filed before the completion of the assessment for this year. The Income-tax Officer, however, did not accept this explanation and imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,804. 7. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that so for as the credit in sale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess the assessee had filed a revised return. In this connection he drew our attention to the Income-tax Officer's letter to the assessee dated 20th Dec., 1971 and the assessee's reply to the Income-tax Officer dated 23rd Feb., 1972. 10. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the rival submissions. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has sustained the penalty of Rs. 1,000 for the reason that there was an attempt made on the part of the assessee to conceal its income. Under the provisions of the Income-tax Act penalty is leviable only for actual concealment of income and not for attempted concealment. That apart, on the facts of this case as discussed below it is impossible to hold that the assessee had mens rea to conceal....