In the present case during the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed that there were credit balance in the names of two parties amounting to Rs.3,52,581/- appearing in the books of account of the assessee. On being asked to verify the same, the assessee agreed to surrender it. The said cessation of liability could not be treated to have been earned from business of export and, thus, shall not form part of the turnover of the export business.
In the case of CIT v. Suraj Bhan [2007] 159 Taxman 26 Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High held that when an assessee files a revised return showing higher income and gives an explanation that he offered higher income to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of higher income having been subsequently declared.
The apex court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa had long ago settled the law that penalty is not to be ordinarily imposed unless the party either acted deliberately in defiance of law and was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligations. Penalty will also not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so.
As per the provisions of section 210(5), if an assessee, who receives an order under sub-section (3) or (4) of section 210, feels that his current income would be less than the amount on which advance tax has been demanded, vide such order, he can send an intimation in Form No. 28A to the Assessing Officer and pay advance tax as per his own estimate.
The only dispute in the present appeals is as to whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)( i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the income from the investment of rupees two crores in the purchase of 13.5 per cent. PSEB Bonds, 2003 First Series on September 20, 1993.
