TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (7) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of the assessment year 1982-83. 2. We have heard the learned representatives on both sides at length. ITA 8997 and 8998/Bom/1988 Returns due to be filed on 31st July, 1982 and 1983 for the two assessment years were filed on 19th Oct., 1982 and 21st Oct., 1983, i.e., with a delay of 2 months in each case. The case of the assessee is that he is a partner in two firms, viz., M/s Shiv Hare & Co. and Maharashtra Country Uquor Bar. The delay in filing the returns was attributed to the non-finalisation of accounts, panicularly of the second firm. It was submitted that Maharashtra Country Liquor Bar also filed their returns late. In support of this plea, photostat copy of the acknowledgme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y for two months. In the circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty from two months to one month, which may be calculated accordingly, delay for the assessment year 1983-84 condoned, penalty deleted. ITA/8172/Bom/1988 5. On facts search was conducted on the business and residential premises of the assessee on 17-12-1982 and unexplained assets consisting of cash, jewellery, video, etc., and F.D. Rs. aggregating to ₹ 13,70,715 were found. Assessee had already filed a return on 19-10-1982 showing an income of ₹ 64,066. The assessee filed a revised return on 21-3-1984 showing an income of ₹ 3,63,065. He was assessed the next day on the same income, the figure rounded to ₹ 3,63,070. While the case of the Departm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submissions. According to him, in the assessment order, cash and jewellery found at the time of the search do not find any place in the assessment for the assessment year 1982-83. These items were added during the assessment year 1983-84 as was evident from the assessment order for that year (available at pg. 13-22 of the paper book), during which year the day of the search also fell. It was also pointed out that the revised assessments for both the years were filed by the assessee on the same day and the assessment completed immediately. 6. The main thrust of the assessee's case as advanced by Sri D.M. Harish, learned counsel for the assessee, is that the returns were filed by the assessee voluntarily, and that too, only with a view ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the same figure which was shown by the assessee. As pointed out, the assessee has made detailed explanation in respect of the additions made during the revised return but barring a bald mention thereof the learned CIT(A) has not discussed them, much less holding, that they were unfounded. 9. We will now deal with certain cases on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the assessee. The first of these cases is the celebrated decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC) , as per which even when the assessee admitted that main items of debit represented his income and agreed to its addition to maintain good relations, in the absence of any evidence to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in his revised return, could even be deducted. As held by the Apex Court, merely agreeing to an addition with a view to buy peace and maintain cordial relations with the Department, an assessee does not render himself liable for being penalised under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be gainsaid that there is an absence of any material or finding that the assessee concealed his income. 11. In the result, the penalty imposed is deleted. IT Appeal Nos. 1445 & 878 12. A penalty in a sum of ₹ 16,256 and ₹ 66,960 has been imposed on the assessee under section 273(1)(b) of the IT Act in respect of the two assessment years. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 273 of the IT A....