TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (2) TMI 32
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sales tax authorities on the premises of the assessee and during the search Uchanti Bahi containing record of the transactions of purchase and sale, which were not shown in its account books, was also seized. When called upon to produce this Uchanti Bahi, the assessee showed its inability to do so and alleged that the same was lost while returning from the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jullundur, on April 8, 1963. He, however, produced certified copies of the extracts made from that Bahi by the sales tax authorities which showed sales and purchases to the tune of Rs. 1,58,919 and Rs. 1,54,000, respectively, outside the regular account books. The ITO rejected the purchase entries and added the whole of the amount of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f appeal to the effect that Uchanti Bahi business was an independent one ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not give proper weight to the Uchanti Bahi statement procured from the Excise and Taxation Department ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in levying penalty under section 271 (1)(c) ? " So far as the first question is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee has fairly conceded that, in the absence of a plea that the business transactions contained in the Uchanti Bahi belong to a distinct and separate partnership concern, the question referred is of no consequence and need not be answered. It was also not refut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. The question, as framed, therefore, can hardly arise because the moment the above finding is accepted, the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) would be attracted and the penalty exigible. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, the quantum of the concealed income and of the penalty imposed would also be covered by the question framed and he has sought to assail the order of the Tribunal regarding the same. The argument raised in this respect was two-fold, viz., that the authorities were not justified in rejecting the purchase entries in the Uchanti Bahi and that the finding in the assessment order was not conclusive. Reliance for the second argument was placed on a Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696. The first....