N KRISHNAN Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
LAWS(IT)-1994-5-14
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on May 31,1994

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SMT P. K. AMMINI, J. M. - (1.) THIS appeal by the assessee is against the levy of penalty under S. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1978-79.
(2.) The assessee is a dealer in cashew and also runs a toddy shop at Polayathode. The assessee field the return of income on 25th March, 1981 declaring the current years loss at Rs. 10,08,764. The assessee offered net income from toddy business at Rs. 5,000 on estimate, on the basis of the income fixed for the asst. yr. 1976-77 from this shop, the accounts relating to which were seized during the course of search in December, 1976. The net income was fixed in the assessment at Rs. 75,000. Subsequent to the completion of assessment on 30th Nov., 1984, the assessee was required to file a cash flow statement for the financial year 1977-78. In the cash flow statement filed on 24th Feb., 1986 income from toddy shop was credited at Rs. 40,000 as against Rs. 5,000 offered by the assessee. The Assessing Officer concluded from the above statement that the assessee had admitted the offence of concealment of income from toddy business to the extent of Rs. 35,000. In respect of the cashew business, the assessee had filed quantitative details of the kernels as under : judgement_8529_tlit0_19940.htm According to the Assessing Officer, the quantitative particulars showed that the assessee had sent 3200 lbs. of cashew kernels on consignment, no such sale had been credited in the profit and loss account for the year ended on 31st March, 1978. Since the assessee had not accounted for the consignment sales, the Assessing Officer fixed the value of such sales at Rs. 36,570 on the basis of the value fixed by the assessee and added the same to the trading results disclosed by the assessee. The assessment was completed on 30th Nov., 1984. In the appeal before the first appellate authority, the assessee did not press this addition and hence the addition was confirmed by the first appellate authority by his order dt. 30th Oct., 1985.
(3.) SINCE the assessee had not disclosed the above two items of receipts in the return field, the assessee was asked to explain why penalty should not be imposed under S. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealment of income. Being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 30,000 under S. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act as against the minimum penalty of Rs. 15,508. On appeal, the first appellate authority confirmed the penalty imposed under S. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee is aggrieved.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.