TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (4) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of execution of contracts of the State Govt. and Semi-Government bodies. The return of income was filed on 6-7-1992 declaring the total income of Rs. 54,859. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,00,250 to the returned income in his order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 4. The Assessing Officer in his order has stated that the assessee firm took deposits of Rs. 1,82,000 from various persons. The assessee filed the confirmation of the cash credits of Rs. 81,750 only. However, the assessee could not file confirmations of the remaining cash credits of Rs. 1,00,250. During....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her details as the creditors had gone away at the relevant time from their native place towards Gujarat because of drought situation in Jamnagar districts and their whereabouts were not known to the assessee. Therefore with a view to buy peace of mind and get the assessment completed the assessee had offered a sum of Rs. 1,00,250 for taxation with the understanding that no penalty proceedings shall be initiated in respect of such addition. Thus, according to the ld. counsel, the surrender of income was subject to an understanding that no penalty proceedings will be initiated as the assessee wanted to get the assessment completed and buy peace of mind. According to the Id. counsel, the Assessing Officer did not adhered to the understanding t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pel against law. Hence, if the assessee offered the amount for addition as they could not produce any evidence regarding genuineness of credits, this does not stop the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee for initiating the penalty as per the provisions of law. The Id. counsel relied upon the decision in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. wherein the concept of promissory estoppel has been considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "The ingredients of the concept in short are that if one of the parties agrees to something and the other party acts upon the agreement, the first party cannot dishonour his part of the contract. In Income-tax proceedings, the doctrine becomes relevant when for instance the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... liability to be assessed under the Act. It would be a different matter if the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner comes to the conclusion that the order was passed on the admission of the assessee and the assessee is unable to explain that the admission was wrongly recorded under some mistaken belief of fact and law. In that case, the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner may dismiss the appeal on merits". In the present case the offer was made by the assessee for the completion of his assessment and also to buy peace of mind. Therefore, the question of wrongly recording the admission in the assessment does not arise. The assessee agreed to the addition with full understanding of the law and, therefore, the assessee lost the right of appeal under sectio....