TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (4) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the gross profits shown in the accounts of the assessee was too low to be accepted. After the completion of the assessment for the above years proceedings were initiated for penalty under s. 271(1)(c) and penalties were levied in respect of all the years by the IAC. As against the orders levying penalty for the years 1960-61 to 1963-64, revision petitions had been filed before the Commissioner and against the order levying penalty for 1964-65, an appeal was filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Commissioner cancelled the penalty for 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63, but he sustained the penalty for 1963-64. As regards the order levying penalty for 1964-65, which was challenged before the Tribunal, the petitioner succeeded in get....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been pointed out that the addition made by the ITO in the assessment year 1963-64 was in respect of low gross profit and the petitioner had agreed to the said addition. The acceptance of the addition will automatically lead to the inference that there has been a deliberate concealment of the income. According to the counter-affidavit, the acceptance of the estimate made by the ITO will show that the gross profit has been purposely shown to be low by the assessee, and besides that the entries in the account books produced by the assessee are not possible for verification in the absence of the production of the necessary purchase vouchers, etc. Thus, according to the respondents, once the petitioner, without taking steps or effort to sat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the years 1960-61 to 1962-63, has however chosen to sustain the penalty for 1963-64 on the ground, " As far as 1963-64 is concerned, it is found by the IAC that the additions on account of hundi credits should also include the addition on account of low gross profit. In regard to this year, therefore, it is not possible to accept the argument that no penalty should be levied. The petition for this year is, therefore, rejected ". Thus, the finding rendered by the first and second respondents in their respective orders is that the assessee had agreed for an addition towards the low gross profit. This finding has not been challenged before us in this writ petition. But what is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee showing the position of his wealth, proceeded to estimate the income on the basis of 20% of the gross profit as against 15% returned by the assessee. The assessee accepted the estimate made by the ITO and the assessment was completed on the basis of the acceptance. Thereafter, the penalty proceedings were initiated. When the penalty proceedings were challenged before the Tribunal, the Tribunal set aside the order of penalty. The revenue challenged the Tribunal's order cancelling the penalty. This court expressed as follows : " In the present case, the assessee himself had accepted the estimate at 20 per cent. as made by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee has not also been able to show that his own estimate was a bona fide or p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had been proved. This contention having been negatived by the Tribunal, the matter came up to this court on a reference. This court held that when the assessee who must have been aware of his real income estimated his income for the assessment years in question deliberately at a lower amount, he should be taken to have deliberately concealed his true income and this will attract s. 271(1)(c). The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to distinguish the said decisions of this court by contending that the petitioner has not made any estimate of his income in his return, but he has filed a return on the basis of his account books which he has maintained in the regular course of business, and that the ITO while completing the assessment ....