1997 (12) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in cancelling the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" The brief facts are that the assessee, who is an individual, filed her return for the assessment year 1979-80 on January 18, 1980, in which she declared the total income of Rs. 1,550. She filed a revised return on February 18, 1982, wherein the total income was shown at Rs. 45,130. The Assessing Officer made an ex parte assessment under section 144 of the Income-tax Act on the total income of Rs. 48,970 on March 10, 1982. In this assessment order and out of this total income, no part was linked with the capital gains of the assessee. Before the order dated March 10, 1982, could be served on the assessee, she filed a second revised return on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d liable to pay penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, because in the opinion of the Tribunal it was merely through an oversight and an omission that she failed to disclose the capital gain in the first two returns and on discovery of the mistake she voluntarily placed information regarding the capital gains in the second revised return filed on March 24, 1982. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the breach on the part of the assessee was of technical or venial nature of the statutory provisions and being by way of an oversight or omission, did not attract the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned advocate for the Revenue has relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of Kumar Jagadish Chandra Sinha ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....given as loan to Alipore Pvt. Ltd., a family concern of the assessee. These facts clearly established beyond any doubt that even as on the day when she filed the original return, it was in her knowledge that she had earned this income by way of capital gains. Yet she did not disclose this in the original return. When she filed the first revised return, again she did not disclose this part of the income. In this background, therefore, we fail to understand or appreciate as to how could the Tribunal hold that the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose this income was either by an omission or by way of an oversight or that it was a mere technical or venial breach of the law. There was absolutely no material on record to suggest that s....