ABHILASH KUMARI OSWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, on the application of the applicant, has referred the following question for our decision :

(2.) ABHILASH Kumari Oswal (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee"), an individual, derives income from partnership in the firm of M/s. Oswal Hosiery Factory (Managing Agency), speculation, interest on securities and other sources. The assessee had not previously been assessed by way of regular assessment as provided under Section 212(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The previous year for the assessment year 1965-66 ended on 31st March, 1965. If the total income of the assessee exclusive of capital gains for the previous year under consideration was likely to exceed the maximum amount not chargeable to income-tax in her case by Rs. 2,500, then before 1st day of March, 1965, she was required to furnish, (i) an estimate of the total income exclusive of capital gains of the said previous year ; and (ii) an estimate of advance tax payable by her calculated in the manner laid down in Section 209 of the Act. She was also required to pay the amount of advance income-tax in accordance with the aforesaid estimate on the dates specified in Section 211 of the Act. Though, according to her own return of income, her total income amounted to Rs. 65,025, she did not file any estimate under Section 212(3). Consequently, penalty proceedings under Section 273(b) of the Act were initiated, when the assessment was completed on 18th March, 1970, on a total income of Rs. 82,772. The income assessed included speculation income of Rs. 35,314; share of profit from Oswal Hosiery Factory (Managing Agency)--Rs. 29,394 and income from other sources being unexplained investment in National Plan Certificates--Rs. 15,000.

(3.) SO far as the speculation income is concerned, the Tribunal has found as a fact that the transaction with M/s. Lalit Kumar and SOns was completed during the month of December, 1964. That being so, the assessee knew that she was to receive her share of profit. SO far as the transaction with M/s. Thakur Dass Naresh Kumar is concerned, Mr. B. S. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, laid great stress on the letter dated 26th April, 1965, wherein it has been written that the assessee was likely to incur a loss of Rs. 16,000 to Rs. 17,000. As the facts stand, this letter is of no help to the assessee, as she had not brought any material on the record to prove the date on which the transaction was settled, as a result of which she had received profit from M/s. Thakur Dass Naresh Kumar, on 15th March, 1968. The Tribunal, on the material available on the record, has rightly held that penalty under Section 273(b) of the Act was exigible. Consequently, the question referred for our decision is answered in the affirmative, i. e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.