TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion was sent to the respondent mentioning the loss at Rs. 4,04,106/-. The respondent filed an application under Section 154 of the Act, with a request to rectify the order and the same was acceded to on 09.11.1995. The Assessing Officer has taken up an exercise under Section 143(2) of the Act, in respect of the same returns. During the course of verification, he doubted the correctness of the two sundry credits, being Rs. 5,67,840/- and 5,60,160/-, said to be from Super Tyre Retreads and Andhra Rubber Factory. The explanation offered by the respondent was not found to be satisfactory by the Assessing Officer. Thereupon, the respondent agreed for treating those two amounts as income. Accordingly, the order of assessment was passed and tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respective provisions, itself is not absolute or final. The Courts and the Tribunals are not uniform in their interpretation of the relevant provisions. Obviously, to provide a deterrance to the assessees, the Parliament added Section 271 of the Act, providing for levy of penalty, in case an assessee is found to have suppressed, or concealed income, or posted the incorrect facts. Till it was amended in the year 1964, Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, brought only deliberate concealment, or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the basis for levy of penalty. Through the Finance Act, 1964, the word deliberately was omitted. Such omission, no doubt, has added new dimensions to the provision. All the same, the revenue has to discharge its b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cording to them, it was almost a measure of purchasing peace. The worries of the respondent are evident from the fact that it has posted losses. Lack of any mala fide intention on the part of the respondent is clear from the fact that those two items were carried forward from the previous year and were not new additions at all. The Commissioner has verified the record in detail and found that there did not exist any occasion, or basis for levy of penalty. Same view was expressed by the Tribunal. It is, no doubt, true that the Tribunal made a reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax 168 ITR 705, which, in turn, was rendered with reference to the provisions as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or the corresponding tax. The very fact that quite large number of remedies in the form of appeals at various stages is provided for, discloses that even the understanding of the assessing or adjudicatory authorities; not absolute. The levy of penalty is not going to leave the matter at that. It would expose the assessee to prosecution also by treating him as an economic offender. An assessee can be made to suffer such far reaching consequences, if only facts of the case support, and it emerges that the assessee had a clear intention to suppress the income. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mak Data P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 358 ITR 593. Their Lordships held tha....