TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (5) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der an authorisation of the Commissioner, Amritsar, on three grounds, (1) that since the CIT as a result of the settlement between the partners of the firm and the revenue imposed a lesser penalty than the minimum imposable under s. 271(1)(c)(iii) of the I.T. Act, the prosecution stands statutorily barred by s. 279 of the Act ; (2) that according to the terms of the settlement arrived at between the partners of the said firm and the Commissioner, Amritsar, the question of launching of criminal prosecution had to be considered on merits, that is, after hearing the partners of the firm, including the petitioner ; and (3) that the petitioner was merely a sleeping partner and had not signed any document including the return and, therefore, ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tition dated January 7, 1974, subject to the following : (a) suitable spread over assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. (b) penalty under section 271(1)(c) may be imposed, not exceeding a sum total of Rs. 66,826, Rs. 53,766, Rs.525 and approximately Rs. 5,000, representing the difference of money charged on sales of goods and money paid on purchase of goods as recorded in the mundi behi. (c) Registration to be granted. (d) No separate additions in the trading account and in partner's hands for alleged low withdrawals or cash credits for the assessment year 1970-71 in partner's account. (e) No separate notice-reopening cash credits amounting to Rs. 1,78,916 in mundi behi and Rs. 25,900 in the original books. (f) No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agreed that there was adequate and satisfactory reasons for late filing of the returns. The ITO to consider this at the appropriate time. The assessee and partners have agreed to all these terms. Inform all concerned. Sd. S. N. Mathur C.I.T. 28-2-1974 Sd. Hem Raj Kapur Sd. Nirmala Kapur Sd. Arun Kumar Kapur 28-2-1974 Sd. D. S.Sandhu IAC(C), Ludhiana Sd. M. L.Aggarwal 28-2-1974 Sd. Kulwant Rai 28-2-1974." Now, coming to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he referred to para. 2 of the settlement, which mentions the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,26,200, and contended that according to the provisions of s. 271(1)(c)(iii), the minimum penalty imposable on the income concealed fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le evidence in the mundi behi regarding the assessment year 1970-71, which pertained to the four items of profit that were suppressed from the return of income of the firm. These items are : (1) An item of Rs. 66,826 which represents the sale of imported wool- tops-licences, the proceeds of which had been recorded in the mundi behi ; (2) An item of Rs. 53,766 which represents the particulars of the entries recorded in the mundi behi pertaining to Messrs Talwar Spinners representing inflation in purchases account ; (3) Rs. 5,000 Both representing the difference in the money charged on sales and paid on purchases of goods as (4) Rs. 525 recorded in the mundi behi. I find considerable merit in the stand taken by the departmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncealed income of the firm was available regarding only Rs. 1,26,117 which the person representing the firm conceded as much, apart from the proof that was available from the mundi behi regarding the said amount and, therefore, the department imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,26,200 and not more because that was the part of the settlement in cl. (b) of the proposal which the firm had proposed that the penalty should not exceed the aggregate of the said sums. The penalty imposed by the department exceeds that sum only by Rs. 83. Hence, the penalty amount of Rs. 1,26,200, being more than hundred per cent. of the concealed income of Rs. 1,26,117, it is that sum alone which can be considered to be concealed income, as positive proof regarding that was....