COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RATAN CHAND LODHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the Department at length. His submission is that this is a fit and proper case where the Tribunal should have come to the conclusion that there was concealment of income and the penalty should have been imposed as contemplated under Section 273(2)(a) of the Act. WE are not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel on the simple ground that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal firstly came to the conclusion that it could not be said to be a case of false estimate and secondly that the amount involved is a very petty amount. It has been held in CWT v. Executors of Late D. T. Udeshi [1991] 189 ITR 319 (Bom) and CWT v. Girdhari Lal Saraf [1991] 190 ITR 264 (Raj), that in cases where the amount involved is petty, the reference should not be called for merely for the sake of arguments.

(2.) WE are in agreement with what has been held in the above two cases and besides this we are also of the opinion that there is a difference between an approach to be given for a reference to be called under Sections 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(a) as Section 271 deals with the cases of false returns while Section 273 deals with false estimates which is always at the stage of depositing advance tax.