JUDGMENT Om Parkash, J.
1. This is a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), for the assessment year 1968-69. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions :
"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee could be allowed to take the plea of technical mistake in accounting regarding the amount of Rs. 30,863 as it could reasonably be presumed by it that since the goods were in transit, the assessee need not show the value of the same in the closing stock ?
(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income only with reference to the revised return ?
(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty imposed should be reduced accordingly as per the provisions of law applicable on the date of filing of the revised return ?"
2. The facts, as briefly stated, are that, during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69, which ended on March 31, 1968, the assessee obtained an import licence for import of nickel anodes and for that two bills were made, one of them was in the name of Messrs. James Greaves and Co., Manchester (U.K.) for £ 1,482 and another in the name of Bohler Brothers and Co. Ltd. of Vienna for £2,494. The amounts of these two bills in Indian currency worked out to Rs. 30,863. Admittedly, these goods were not received by the assessee during the relevant accounting year, but in April, 1968, the Income-tax Officer observed that the assessee had paid Rs. 8,500 to Messrs. Dadabhoy Hormusjee and Sons Ltd. of Bombay towards clearing, forwarding and shipping charges ; this amount was paid in February, March, 1968, and was then entered in the books of account of the assessee on March 13, 1968. The assessee then debited to the goods account the entire amount of Rs. 39,363 (30,863 + 8,500), but in drawing up the profit and loss account, the assessee failed to include the value of the abovementioned goods in the closing stock. However, when the assessee was asked to explain, it immediately filed a revised return in which the income with reference to the original return was increased by Rs. 30,863, while the amount of Rs. 8,500 paid to Messrs. Dadabhoy Hormusjee and Sons Ltd. was not included even at that stage.
3. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings in regard to the total amount of Rs. 39,363 and eventually levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the amount of Rs. 50,000.
4. The assessee then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which found that there was a technical mistake in accounting so far as the amount of Rs. 30,863 was concerned. The Tribunal observed :
". ... as it could reasonably be presumed by it that since the goods were in transit, the assessee need not show the value of the same in the closing stock, but it is not understood as to how the mistake regarding the non-disclosure of the amount of Rs. 8,500 paid to Messrs. Dadabhoy Hormusjee and Sons Ltd. on March 13, 1968, could be said to be a technical mistake when the amount has been actually paid. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to hold that the assessee is guilty of concealment of income, as in the revised return also the assessee failed to disclose the same amount. In this respect, we may observe that the penalty imposed may be reduced accordingly as per the provisions of law applicable on the date of filing of the revised return. ..."
5. From the above reproduced observations, it is clear that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee was guilty of concealment to the extent of Rs. 8,500 only which was entered in the books of account during the relevant accounting year but not reflected in the closing stock. So far as the amount of Rs. 30,863 representing the value of the goods which remained in transit during the relevant accounting year and which was not reflected in the closing stock is concerned, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was of the view that such omission on the part of the assessee was bona fide. The finding on the question : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the omission on the part of the assessee was bona fide, is purely a finding of fact. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that, on the facts of the case, there was bona fide omission on the part of the assessee, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
6. For the above reasons, we answer all the abovementioned questions in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.