1981 (4) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 14,000. The details of the income returned would be clear from the following table: Head of Income Original return Revised return Property Rs. 139 Rs. 395 Business Rs. 5,985.53 Rs. 9,015.24 Un-explained investment — Rs. 5000 . . Surrendered Assessment was completed on 13th Sept., 1976 on a total income of Rs. 16,450. Accordingly the ITO initiated penal proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. In the penalty proceeding the assessee filed explanation dt. 30th Oct., 1976. In that explanation it was stated by the assessee that the returns were submitted voluntarily and in good faith. He also explained that revised returns were filed for asst. yrs. 1973-74 to 1975-76 on 2nd Sept., 19....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....He also noticed that the assessee had only stated that many returns were filed together and so some mistake may have crept in but no reason had been given as to why the business income was given at Rs. 5,985.50 earlier and was reduced to Rs. 1,105,24 later. The ld. AAC noticed that the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) was attracted since the income returned was less than 80 per cent of the income assessed and holding that the onus had not been discharged by the assessee the ld. AAC confirmed the penalty. 3. In appeal before us, Shri Jawahar Lal Shastri, ld. counsel for the assessee firstly argued that the revised return was filed only because the assessee become aware of an error and that the revised returns for asst. yrs. 1973-74, 1974-75 an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Addl. CIT vs. Rawalpindi Flour Mills (P) Ltd. (1980) 125 ITR 243 (All). He argued that the material collected during the assessment proceedings and findings arrived at thereon though relevant for penalty proceedings could not form the sole basis for the imposition of penalty. 4. On the other hand, Shri Shiv Prasad, the ld. Deptl. Rep. placed strong reliance on the orders of the authorities below. He also placed reliance on the following authorities and argued that the assessee had failed to displace the presumption of concealment and that the guilt of the assessee is not washed by filing a revised return. 1. Rukmani Bahu vs. Addl. CIT 1978 CTR (All) 469 : (1979) 116 ITR 468 (All) 2. CIT vs. Gyan Prakash Sushil Kumar (1979) 8CTR ....