9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (1) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngh Devender Singh and Devender Singh Co. The original return for the assessment year 1976-77 was filed on20-6-1976declaring an income of Rs. 28,270. A revised return was filed on15-1-1977in which certain unexplained investment in household furniture for Rs. 7,700 were surrendered. The ITO completed the assessment and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). As no compliance was stated to have been made to the notices, the ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 for concealment under section 271(1)(c). When the matter was taken up before the AAC, the same was taken upheld. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel of the assessee that the revised return was made on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me was offered for this assessment year does not make the same to be the current income of the assessee. Therefore, no penalty is leviable. Reliance is placed on CIT v. Vinaychand Harilal [1974] 120 ITR 752 (All.) and Mohd. Ibrahim Azimulla v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 680 (All.). On the other hand, the learned departmental representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities. Since this case is within the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court and Explanation to section 271(1)(c) being applicable, the decisions of the Allahabad High Court would squarely apply. As such, no interference is called for in the matter. Reliance is placed on the following decisions---Addl. CIT v. Quality Sweet House [1981] 130 ITR 309 (All.), CIT v. Chiranji L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be said that it is the investment of the assessee in the relevant previous year. On this basis, the decision of theGujaratHigh Court relied upon by the learned counsel of the assessee is squarely applicable. It is also seen that the Allahabad High Court in Mohd. Ibrahim's case held that if the assessee had established that it could have been disclosed in the original return if it had taken care, then the burden placed on it by the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) stood discharged and it could not be said that the assessee failed to prove that the disclosure was not due to fraud or gross or wilful neglect. Therefore, no presumption could be raised that the assessee could be deemed to be guilty of concealment of that amount. Having reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
