Shorn of all unnecessary details the fact of the matter is as under Appellant is an individual.
An application was filed by him before the Settlement Commission on or about 17.1.1990 for settlement of the taxes due which was, however, rejected by an order dated 26.9.1990.
Respondent, however, being number satisfied with the return, called for better particulars of investments made by the appellant, whereupon a revised return was filed on 12.1.1990 furnishing all the requisite particulars to the Department.
Tax matters of the appellant were being looked after for a number of years by the Law Agency Division of the Syndicate Bank, Manipal, which was authorised to file the returns of income before the tax authorities representing the assessee herein.
The fault, if any, was with his tax companynsel and even the said tax companynsel viz.
The said companytention was number accepted by the Assessing Authority.
The said revised return was accepted by the Assessing Officer.
Appellant, thereafter, filed a second revised return, upon which assessment was made by the Assessing Officer.
2747 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.1194 of 2006 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
However, a proceedings for imposition of penalty in terms of Section 271 1 C of the Income Tax Act was initiated.
The banker of the assessee was the Syndicate Bank.
The said arrangement companytinued for a number of years in the past.
In the cause shown by the appellant a companytention was raised that he had acted bona fide as the tax affairs were being looked after by the professional group working with the Syndicate Bank.
The shares of the companypanies which the appellant owned were lodged with and in custody of the said Bank.
A power of attorney was given by the appellant in its favour.
He is an engineering graduate.
It has also sold the shares of the appellant and delivered the same to the brokers or the parties and also used to pay or receive the sale proceeds and deposit the same in the bank account.
For the assessment year 1985 86 the return of income on behalf of the appellant was filed on 13.2.1989.
the Syndicate Bank, cannot be said to have acted in a mala fide manner in preparing the return of income of the assessee wrongly.
He has also earned income from dividend and interest.
Under his instructions, the Bank used to purchase shares of various companypanies and kept with it the physical possession thereof.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Apart from his income by way of salary, he was having shares of profit of a number of firms besides income from proprietorship business.
The assessee is in appeal before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment dated 29.9.2005, passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in ITRC No.492 of 1998 whereby and whereunder answer to the following question was rendered in the negative.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty u s.271 1 C was number exigible in the present case?
