COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. K MEENAKSHI KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is :

(2.) THE assessee during the relevant assessment years was plying buses. She had not maintained accounts but had submitted returns in which she estimated income from six buses at Rs. 12,000 per bus. THE assessee was asked to furnish various details such as the number of days on which the vehicles plied on the route; the tax paid for each of the vehicles, etc. It was found by the AO, with the particulars so furnished, that the income as estimated by the assessee was rather low. He noticed the assessee's explanation that the vehicles were old and that the routes were not remunerative. THE ITO thereafter proceeded to make an estimate of the income.

(3.) THE Tribunal in this case has clearly held that the estimate given by the assessee was not the result of any gross or wilful negligence and that penalty was not called for. It is clear from a reading of the order of the Tribunal that, the Tribunal was of the view that, the estimates given by the assessee are not such as to be regarded as deliberate underestimate of income. THE decision relied on by the Revenue, therefore, is not of any assistance on the facts of this case.