9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from M/s Globe Associates (P.) Ltd.,New Delhi, a company under liquidation. In the books of account of the above company, the loan amount was debited on13-12-1960and credited on29-12-1960. The corresponding entry of loan received was found in the assessee's books of account on14-12-1960, but there was no entry of repayment to M/s Globe Associates (P.) Ltd. on or about29-12-1960. The amount was carried forward from year to year and transferred to Suspense Account on13-12-1965. It was admitted that entry relating to repayment on29-12-1960was correct. The assessee was asked to explain the source of repayment of loan to M/s. Globe Associates (P.) Ltd. It was claimed that Dr. A.V. Baliga had received donations from different persons and those donations were utilised for repayment of the loan. The amount was remitted through one Shri S.L. Kapoor. The details of the donations received were not furnished, as Dr. Baliga was dead by the time the proceedings were taken. However, Shri S. L. Kapoor denied the transaction in the statement recorded by the Assessing Officer. The assessee further could not give the Branch of the Bank through which the amount was remitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income-tax Act ? (b) Whether, on the facts, penalty is exigible as per the relevant provisions applicable in this case ?" 9. As far as the first question is concerned, the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that the matter has to be decided in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Onkar Saran Sorts [1992] 195 ITR 1. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, argued that the issue is to be determined in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Varkey Chacko v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 885. 10. We have considered the decisions cited at the bar. In our considered view, the matter is not res integra and is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Onkar Saran Sons. The decision cited on behalf of the Revenue which relates to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 of the Income-tax Act also supports the view canvassed on behalf of the assessee. This is clear from the following observations available at pages 890/891 of the report:--- "A penalty for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any pro- the Commissioner (Ap- the course of any pro- ceedings under this Act peals) in the course of ceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any per- any proceedings under is satisfied that any per- son:--- this Act, is satisfied that son:---- any person:--- (c) has concealed the par- (c) has concealed the par- (c) has concealed the par- ticulars of his income or ticulars of his income or ticulars of his income or deliberately furnished deliberately furnished furnished inaccurate inaccurate particulars of inaccurate particulars of particulars of such in- such income, such income, come, he or it may direct that he may direct that such he may direct that such such person shall pay by person shall pay by way person shall pay by way way of penalty in the case of penalty, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or earning any income included in the total income but which has been disallowed as a deduction) such person shall, unless he proves that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or willful neglect on his part, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tely furnished inaccurate particulars." 14. Having examined the relevant provision as applicable to the case in hand, we proceed to examine the facts of the case to determine the second question. In this case, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on account of return of loan to M/s. Globe Associates (P.) Ltd., the source of repayment not having been proved. It is clear from the assessment order as also from the order levying the penalty that penalty in respect of this sum was imposed as the assessee-company failed to explain its case and Mr. S.L. Kapoor, through whom the amount was claimed to be remitted, denied the transaction. The assessee may not have discharged the onus under section 68 of the Income-tax Act and addition under the above provision justified. But in the penalty proceedings, it was required to be appreciated that ten years had elapsed and by the time the reassessment proceedings were taken, Dr. Baliga was already dead. This important aspect of the case has not been considered. But, assuming that the revenue had established that the claim put forward by the assessee was false, still it was to be established that the disputed amount of Rs. 1 lakh consti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
