9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposit of Rs. 29,257 also was detected. As there was excess of withdrawals to the tune of Rs. 1,06,476 i.e., the difference between the total amount of expenses and investment amounting to Rs. 1,90,274 less Rs. 83,798 sources of which are explained. The ITO proposed addition of that amount. The matter was referred to the IAC under section 144B and the IAC reduced the proposed addition to Rs. 95,000. The addition made at Rs. 95,000 was eventually reduced to Rs. 49,471 by the ITAT. 3. In the meanwhile the ITO initiated penalty proceeding for concealment under section 271(1)(c). Not accepting the explanations offered by the assessee the ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 39,530. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the ITO as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the explanation and made the addition on estimate basis. On appeal the appellate authorities merely sustained the addition on estimate basis. There being no specific concealment the provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not applicable to the facts of the case. The assessee also pointed out that the system of account of the assessee being the same for the earlier years also the Revenue resorted to addition on estimate basis. However, the penalty proceedings initiated for concealment stood dropped on the finding that the ratio of the decision in Anwar Ali's case was applicable and penalty provisions were not to be invoked. The learned counsel of the assessee also relied on the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Nanalal Chunila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enditure for the period from1st April, 1974to31st March, 1975. The ITO, however, was of the opinion that Rs. 1,06,476 remained unexplained. On the other hand, the IAC to whom reference had been made under section 144B was of the view that the unexplained expenditure was Rs. 95,000. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the addition by Rs. 47,469 and the Tribunal eventually upheld the total income of the assessee at Rs. 49,472 thereby upholding the addition of Rs. 39,531. Similar addition made in the assessment year 1973-74 was upheld by the appellate authorities but the IAC vide his order dated 24th January, 1977 dropped the penalty proceedings on the finding that the ratio of the decision in Anwar Ali's case was applicable. Since th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
