1982 (1) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referring for our answer the following question of law : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had concealed the income as the same was not included in the returns filed by the assessee and thereby confirming the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c)of the Act ? "....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... firm, M/s. Karamchand & Bros., was shown. In this return the income from the firm, M/s. Bhimandas & Co. was not shown. The ITO by his letter dated 23rd December, 1972, informed the assessee that it was found that he was a partner in M/s. Karamchand & Bros. the assessment of which had been completed and that he did not show the share income in the return filed by him. The ITO called upon the asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....om the two firms, M/s. Bhimandas & Co. and M/s. Karamchand & Bros., was shown. As regards the income from M/s. Moti Construction Co., it was stated that the return was subject to adjustment in respect of share of profit or loss from M/s. Moti Construction Co., intimation of which had not been received till then. The ITO levied a penalty of Rs. 11,471 on the assessee for non-inclusion of the share ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iled another return through another counsel showing the income from the firm of M/s. Karamchand & Bros. it is apparent that there was no intention to conceal the income and the omission in the first return of the share income from M/s. Karamchand & Bros. was for the reason that two different persons dealt with the cases of these two firms on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal, in reaching its co....