TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (12) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s for the assessment year 1968-69, amounting to Rs. 15,193 leaving as balance the amount shown as income. No particulars were supplied in the income-tax return. But in the computation of income, the income from chitty business was shown as Rs. 47,412. Subsequent to the filing of the return, the business premises of the assessee were searched on July 25, 1970, and certain books were seized. A scrutiny of these showed details as to how the sum of Rs. 47,412 was arrived at. It was seen that under the head " receipts " was entered veethapalisa at Rs. 18,728.24, sundry income at Rs. 19.70 and chitty commission at Rs. 1,42,250. These totalled to Rs. 1,60,997.94. Deducting Rs. 1,13,585.42 as expenses, the balance income was arrived at as Rs. 47,41....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder the other. It was, therefore, argued that there should be no concealment of income. This argument found favour with the Tribunal, but not with the IAC. The relevant paragraphs in the Tribunal's order are paras. 5, 6 and 7. We may quote paragraph 6 : " 6. We have examined the two statements. In one statement, no doubt, the assessee had claimed an expenditure of Rs.1,13,585. It contained the three items, i.e., salary, bonus and commission about which there had been a discussion by the Income-tax Officer. In the revised statement, the total expenses claimed is Rs. 99,718 ; the difference between these two sets of claim for expenditure is about Rs. 14,000. Apart from the three items, there is not much of discussion in the assessment ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame to the conclusion that there was no concealment of income. We are afraid the Tribunal has approached the consideration of the question from an incorrect standpoint. Section 271( 1)(c) of the I.T. Act, as it then stood, read as follows : " 271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.-(1) If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person-... (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, (i) in the cases referred to in clause (a), in addition to the amount of the tax, if any, payable by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with which we are concerned is dated November 15, 1973. It would be noticed that under the section, all that is required for the imposition of a penalty under cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of the section is that the officer concerned must be satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income, or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In other words, for the purposes of cl. (c), there is no need to find any failure to furnish a return or failure to comply with a notice, etc., which are the necessary ingredients under cls. (a) and (b). Again, in the matter of computation of penalty under cls. (a) and (b) it would be seen that under the sub-cls. (i) and (ii) after cl. (c), the penalty imposed is geared to the tax paya....