JUDGEMENT
1. These seven appeals though they relate to different assesses, involve more or less a common question. They are therefore, disposed by this single order. -
(1.)
(2.)In appeal No. 84 (Nag) /86, original assessment was made under s ection 143(1) on 26-2-1982 on a total income of Rs. 15,720. This assessment was reopened under section 143(2) (b) and during these proceeding the assessee filed a revised return disclosing an additional income of Rs. 15,000. This was accepted by the ITO who further initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1) (c) of the IT Act in response to which the assessee contention was that the assessee had surrendered this amount towards his household expenses in order to buy peace with the Departmental and, therefore, no penalty should be levied. The ITO however, rejected this explanation and levied a penalty of Rs. 6,000. This had been deleted by the AAC on the ground that in this case the assessee had offered the amount to tax with an express condition that it will not attract any penalty and that there was no admission that this was the income of the assessee. Moreover, this was not a case of reopening under section 147 at all. Therefore, there could be no inference that there was concealment. The Department has come up in the second appeal before the Tribunal.
In ITA no. 86(Nag) /86 a similar additional of Rs. 8,000 on account of extra household expenditure was made by the ITO on the assessee filing a revised return on 23-3-1984. Of course in this case the assessee that not been completed in the first instance but otherwise the facts are same. The ITO levied a penalty on the basis of assessee admission of extra income and the AAC similarly deleted the penalty because according to him, the ITO had not rebutted the explanation of the assessee that the revised return had been filed without any material in the possession of the ITO about the household expenses. The Department of the ITO about the household expenses. The department is in appeal before the tribunal in this case.
(3.)IN ITA No. 87 (Nag) /86 again the facts are similar. The return was filed at Rs. 23,910. Thereafter the additional income of Rs. 8,000 was shown in the respect of cash represented by demand draft sent by the assessee to Bombay. The source of the cash was stated to be gift received at the time of marriages of Shri Madhusudan Agrawal and Shri Rajendrakumar Agrawal. However, the receipt of such gift was not substantiated. Another Rs. 8,000 was surrendered in the revised return on account of additional household expenses. The ITO initiated penalty proceeding and levied penalty of Rs. 8,800. This penalty has been again been deleted by the AAC on more or less similar reasoning that an explanation was offered for the amount shown as income in the revised returns. The ITO had nowhere given a finding that the explanation was false or there was deliberate mis-representation. There were affidavits from the relatives, confirmatory letter from father-in-law of Rajendrakumar. Thus the assessee had discharged his onus and it was for the ITO to prove that these explanations were false. According to the AAC, it appeared to him that the assessee disclosed the income of Rs. 16,000 in the revised return only on some assurance from the ITO regarding non-levy of penalty. He accordingly deleted the penalty and the Revenue is again in appeal.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.