TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (8) TMI 13
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Explanation thereto, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty could be levied in respect of Rs. 24,591, which was doubly debited in the purchase accounts (Hindusthan Lever Goods)? " The relevant facts necessary for a disposal of the application may be compacted as under: The assessee, an HUF, submitted its return of income on December 13, 1968, showing total income of Rs. 66,369. On February 2, 1970, a revised return was submitted showing an income of Rs. 1,61,607. In the revised return, the assessee included the three items, namely, Rs. 40,588, Rs. 28,742 and Rs. 24,591. Due explanations were submitted by the assessee for the omissions or wrong statements. Regarding the last ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held that the two items could be included by the assessee in the revised return under s. 139(5) of the Act and as such s. 271(1)(c) had no application. The assessee asked for and obtained a reference from the Tribunal to the High Court under s. 256(1) of the Act in respect of the penalty imposed in respect of the amount of Rs. 28,742 and this court in Padma Ram Bharali v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 54, answered the question referred in the negative and against the Department. It held that the Tribunal was not justified in law in upholding the penalty imposed by the IAC relating to the amount of Rs. 28,742. While considering the question as to the justifiability of upholding the penalty of Rs. 28,742, this court dwelt upon the other two items, na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law arises out of the order of the Tribunal in relation to this amount. In the circumstances, we decline to draw up a statement of the case under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reference application is, accordingly, rejected." Now, we find that with respect to Rs. 40,588 as well as Rs. 28,742, there are conclusive findings of the Tribunal and this court, respectively, that the two items were validly included by the assessee in the revised return submitted under s. 139(5) of the Act and, therefore, s. 271 (1)(c) had no application, and, in so far as these two items were concerned, the revised return was within the proper scope and ambit of s. 139(5) of the Act, and that, therefore, no question of penalty could arise. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd it must point to the conclusion that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. Falsity of the explanation given by the assessee, it was observed, was in sufficient without there being cogent materials or evidence from which the necessary conclusion attracting penalty could be drawn. The principles have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369. All these principles were considered in K. C. Trunk and Bucket Factory v. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 67 (Gauhati) [FB]. The same view has been expressed in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC). This apart, we entirel....