K BHASKARAN Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I. T. A. No. 587 ( Coch ) 90, under Section 260a of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Questions of law framed in this case are as follows: "(i)Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case in sustaining the levy of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) in respect of the estimated addition of Rs. 51,515/- for the assessment year 1984-85? (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any material disclosing any receipt on account of delivery charges ( labour room charges) in addition to what is recorded in the accounts, was the appellate tribunal justified in holding that the provisions of Explanation I to Section 271 (1 ) (c)are attracted and that penalty was leviable by invoking the explanation ? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Appellate Tribunal allowing the departmental appeal is legal, valid and sustainable in law ? The facts of the case are as follows

(2.) ASSESSEE is the proprietor of a Hospital at Cannanore. He filed a return of income for the assessment year 1984-85 declaring an income of Rs. 35 ,148 / -. A search was conducted on the premises of the assessee on 12. 12. 1985 and consequent to the seizure of certain material, the following additions were made : ( i ) Addition of account of omission to account delivery charges 51515/ (ii) Addition for omission to account operation theatre and other charges 381950/ (iii) Omission to account for medical attention charges 249170/ The assessee took the matter in appeal and finally at the level of the Tribunal only the addition mentioned at no. (i ) above was sustained. The other two additions were deleted.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellate Sri. T. M. Sreedharan submitted that there is nothing to show that as a matter of fact, the assessee earned the income with regard to Rs. 51,515/ -. According to the assessee , the appellant gave sufficient explanation and it was bona fide one and hence, there is no concealment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Department submitted that it is very clear that the assessee has concealed the income with regard to delivery charges.