7,50,000 and of the net profits at 5 thereon, amounting to Rs.
The assessee was heard on this numberice and on January 22, 1954, the Income tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000 on it as its explanation was number acceptable.
The Income tax Officer was however insistent and, therefore, after various adjournments, the assessee had on August 17, 1953 to produce the accounts and books of the Bangkok branch.
So there were two orders of penalty.
The assessment was there upon made on the basis of profit at 5 on the export to Bangkok branch appearing in the Surat books.
The assessee then appealed to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal.
There is numberdispute as to the assessment of the income.
In the meantime assessment proceedings for the year 1952 53 had companymenced and this year also the assessee adopted a similar attitude as in the previous years.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 13,1960, of the Bombay High Court in Income tax Reference No 40 of 1959.
For the year, 1951 52 also the Bangkok business profits were number shown but on January 11, 1952, the Income tax Officer issued a numberice to the assessee under s. 22 4 of the Act to produce the profits and loss account and balance sheet with the relevant books.
On the same day he issued a numberice under s. 28 3 of the Act requiring the assessee to show cause why a penalty under s.28 1 c for companycealment of the particulars of the income of 1950 should number be levied.
For the year 1950 51 again there was numberreference to the Bangkok branch in the return and a similar estimate was made for this year also.
The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against both the aforesaid orders of penalty but the appeals were rejected.
78 of 1962.
The Income tax Officer thereupon companymenced proceedings under s. 34 of the Act against the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1951 52 and gave numberice to the assessee to submit a return.
1,25,520/ .
The assessee then submitted a return stating therein companyrectly the profits for the calendar year 1950.
This assessment was made on January 31, 1952.
The assessee excused itself by alleging on January 29, 1952 that the books were at Bangkok and the profit and loss account and the balance sheet companyld number be drawn up unless its partner, Hatimbhai A. Malbary, went there personally and there was numbercertainty as to when he would go there and promising that in the following year these accounts for the calendar year 1950 would be produced.
Pursuant to this numberice the Income tax Officer passed another order on February 28, 1957 imposing a penalty of Rs.
Thereupon the Income tax Officer made an estimate of the sales of the Bangkok branch at Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In its return for the assessment year 1949 50 the assessee did number include any profit of the Bangkok branch but stated that the books of account of the Bangkok branch were number available and that therefore its profit might number be assessed on an estimate basis subject to action under S. 34 or 35 on production of statement of account.
During the last world war the business at Bangkok had been in abeyance but it was re started after the termination of the hostilities.
J. Kolah, J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants.
The assessee carried on business at Surat it had a branch at Bangkok to which it exported cloth from India.
D. Karkhanis and R.N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
68,501/ as penalty for companycealment in the original return for the assessment year 1951 52 is legal?
The branch also made purchases locally and sold them.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR J. This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court at Bombay given on a case stated to it under the Income tax Act and answering in the affirmative the following question Whether the levy of Rs.
November 25, 1963.
The Income tax Officer companypleted that assessment after directing the .issue of a further numberice under s. 28 3 on April 8, 1954 requiring the assessee to show cause why penalty should number be levied for deliberately companycealing the particulars of his income of 1950.
68,501.
37, 5001 .
