TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....engaged in the contract business of material handling and is a private limited company, for not showing the amount of work uncertified in the credit side of the profit and loss account and thereby not furnishing accurate particulars of its income in the original return of income filed by it and the assessee filed revised return only when it was pointed out by the Assessing Officer, though under law the assessee was duty-bound to do that and to pay tax accordingly?" Heard Mr. T.U. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the applicant-Revenue and Mr. R.K. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent-assessee. The assessment year is 1990-91 and the relevant accounting period is the financial year ended on March 31, 1990. The facts as recorded by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penalty. The Tribunal in its impugned order noted that the difference between the originally returned income and the revised returned income was only a sum of Rs. 63,000, while the difference between the original income and the assessed income was about Rs. 77,000, meaning thereby the difference between the revised return and the assessed income was only to the tune of Rs. 14,000. The Tribunal has recorded that this difference between the returned income and the assessed income is far less than the income alleged to have been concealed only because, on the one hand the assessee did not show the value of the work-in-progress, while on the other hand there were various errors of including as income items which were not really taxable. After ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate such allegation. The Tribunal concludes by holding that the assessee adopted a particular system of accounting for four assessment years, including the year under consideration, and for three preceding assessment years the said system has been accepted by the Department; but when the Department sought to take a different stand in the fourth year, the assessee gracefully submitted a revised return offering the item for taxation and accepted the assessment made. Thus, it was concluded by the Tribunal that exigibility of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the assessee could not be charged with concealment of....