2003 (4) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l practitioner. The relevant assessment year is 1966-67. In that year, he was also an employee of the Government of Rajasthan. In the returns, he has shown income from salary as well as from private practice. The assessee did not maintain any regular books of account in respect of his private practice. The assessee filed returns and those returns were revised thrice and different figures of income had been shown in the returns. The Income-tax Officer had in his possession information that the assessee had issued certificates to the employees of the postal department and gross receipts were Rs. 1,09,489. This fact was brought to the notice of the assessee. He simply replied that he has not received the total amount of receipts issued by h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....)(c) was not justified. We accordingly cancel it." Mr. Singhi, learned counsel for the Department, submits that as the assessee has received Rs. 1,08,489 from the employees of the various Departments and that has been confirmed from those concerned Departments, there is a clear case of concealment and the Tribunal has wrongly cancelled the penalty. Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the assessee, submits that though the assessee has issued the receipts of that amount to the employees they have not paid that much amount to him. Therefore, he had shown only Rs. 43,802 as receipts from Government employees. He supported the order of the Tribunal. The details of the income of the assessee as shown in the original return and three revised....