YAMUNA RESTAURANT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the parties stated that they have no objection, if this reference was heard by this Bench.

(2.) ASSESSEE is a partnership firm running a restaurant and the assessment year under reference is 1970 71. In the course of income tax assessment for the assessment year under reference, the ITO on scrutiny of cash book, found that the assessee had tampered with the figures. The assessee had disclosed total sales at Rs. 2,67,748. The ITO, however, after taking into consideration the inflated figures, found that the sales were to the extent of Rs. 2,72,728. The ITO added Rs. 35,980 to the income of the assessee, representing suppressed sales. The AAC confirmed this addition in appeal. In further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal"for short), it was held that the assessee has deliberately understated the sales for which there was no acceptable explanation. The Tribunal, therefore, confirmed the addition.

(3.) IT is difficult to say that there is no evidence to sustain the finding that there was concealment of income, as urged on behalf of the assessee. The evidence clearly establishes that the assessee had tampered with the books of account and this was done only with a view to suppressing the sales. There is evidence to prove that there was understatement of income to the extent of Rs. 35,980 on account of suppression of sales. Admittedly, the assessee had not disclosed this income of Rs. 35,980. In our opinion, there was clear case of concealment of income. the Tribunal was, therefore, right in levying penalty, which it did.