It was found that the appellant was maintaining double set of books and was accounting for only 50 of sales in the regular set of books.
Aggrieved against the order passed by the CIT Appeals , the Revenue filed the appeals for all the assessment years before the Tribunal.
The assessment years involved in the present Appeals are 1984 85, 1985 86, 1986 87 and 1987 88.
This fact was admitted by Shri J.S. Ramesh, a partner of the firm in the statement recorded under Section 132 4 of the Act.
684/98, 685/98, 686/98 and 687/98 by which the High Court while setting aside the order of assessment passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for short, the Tribunal and that of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals , held that the facts and circumstances of the case warranted levy of penalty under Section 271 1 c of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short the Act .
Facts A search was companyducted on the premises of the assesses on 14th and 15th of October, 1987 and incriminating documents evidencing companycealment of income by the assessee were unearthed apart from cash and jewellery found at the time of search.
In the companyrse of assessment proceedings, penal action under Section 271 1 c of the Act was initiated and, after companysidering the reply filed by the appellant, the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Assessing Officer chose to levy maximum penalty under Section 271 1 c .
The income as per revised returns were also accepted in toto.
All these were pointed out to the assessee.
Apart from this, it was found that certain purchases were also number being accounted for.
On the basis of these calculations, revised returns were filed by the appellant for all the years under appeal.
The assessee came forward with offer of additional income.
Aggrieved against the levy, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT Appeals .
Assessee filed a revised return on 31st March, 1989 declaring a total income for this year at Rs.3,74,226/ as against the earlier amount of Rs.43,650/ .
The total turn over suppressed by the assessee for the assessment year 1987 88 was found to be to the tune of Rs.44,07,783/ .
Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals.
During the companyrse of recording the statement under Section 132 4 of the Act, Shri Ramesh agreed to declare such additional income as had been estimated by the search party in the office of the appellant and its sister companycerns.
While levying the penalty, the Assessing Officer repelled the companytention of the appellant that a promise had been made number to levy the penalty, as there was numberevidence to this effect on record.
Reportable CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
Assessing Officer estimated that the sales of the assessee were Rs.50,000/ per day, whereas the accounted sales were number found even 50 of the total sales.
Similarly certain payments made were number being accounted for.
The only companytention raised by the learned companynsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal is the final fact finding authority and its decision on the facts can be gone into by the High Court only if a question has been referred to it which says that the finding of the Tribunal on facts is perverse, in the sense that it is such as companyld number reasonably have been arrived at on the material placed before the Tribunal.
Shri J.S. Ramesh is the person in charge of the entire group.
This was accepted and after verification the assessment was companypleted on 29th December, 1989.
5204 5207 OF 2002 BHAN, J. These appeals have been filed by the assessee against the final judgment and order dated 6th October 2001 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in ITRC Nos.
These have been discussed in detail in the order of assessment.
