1983 (10) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the ITO found that the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income inasmuch as it had failed to disallow payment of income-tax of Rs. 10,102 which stood debited to Vatav account. The ITO also disallowed a sum of Rs. 18,369 relating to claim of bad debt and took action u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income in respect of the aforesaid items. 2. In the meantime the assessee took up the matter to the AAC and challenged the disallowance in regard to bad debt and the said claim stood allowed by the AAC. 3. In course of penalty proceedings the ITO observed that the assessee's explanation was that its failure to disallow income-tax at the time of filing the return was an omission due to oversight of the accountant inasm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was the duty of the assessee to make a correct return and that the assessee could not have overlooked the said disallowance. It was trite to say that payment of the income tax is not an allowable business expenditure. The assessee had wrongly debited the said amount to vatav (discount) account and but for the care taken by the ITO the said disallowance would have escaped unnoticed. The ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand pointed out that the assessee had admitted the fact that the impunged payment was clearly a disallowance but had omitted to disallow the same in the return due to a mistake committed by the accountant who instead of debiting the account to the vatav account proper i.e., P & L account had debited the amount to va....