PADMARAJU G K Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN compliance with the directions of this Court, the Tribunal at Bombay, Bench C, has sent a statement of the case on the following questions : "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the estimates of Rs. 55,000 in respect of Visakhapatnam business and Rs. 70,000 in respect of Raipur branch were justified ?

(2.) WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty of Rs. 25,000 sustained by the Tribunal under S. 28(1)(c) of the Act was justified in law?"

(3.) WITH respect to the second contention, the question whether for purposes of levy of penalty the assessee had concealed his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, is a question of fact to be determined in the circumstances of the case. There is sufficient material on record to show that the assessee has furnished inaccurate and false statements of accounts. The very fact that he has manipulated his accounts, so as to arrive at an income of Rs. 51,774 for both the branches, while in fact he had in his possession a balance-sheet of only one branch showing income of nearly Rs. 64,000, is itself sufficient to justify the IT authorities in levying the penalty. The Tribunal further took into account the excessive nature of the amount of penalty and reduced it to half. It is not open for us to interfere in the quantum of the levy. In the result, both the questions are answered in the affirmative. The assessee to pay the costs. Advocates' fee Rs. 250. Questions answered in the affirmative.