9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us came out of the appellant s earlier earnings as transport contractor and agricultural income as member of his family. The ITO rejected the explanation holding that there is no evidence to show that the appellant was having income as transport contractor. The ITO completed the assessment on a total income of Rs.39,500 including an amount of Rs. 34,000 determined as income from other sources for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the funds of Rs. 34,000 on the date of purchase of the vehicle. In this context it is significant to note that the assessee was hardly 25 or 26 years of age at the relevant point of time. It is, therefore inconceivable that the assessee carried on the occupation as transport contractor for such a long time as to have savings of Rs. 34,000 even at that age. It was admitted that no income-tax retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion as transport broker in the past and also having some agricultural income from which he effected savings which were sufficient to enable him to purchase the bus. The ITO, however, held that there was practically no evidence to support the conclusion that the assessee earned Rs. 34,000 as transport contractor. The ITO therefore treated the sum of Rs.34,000 as income from undisclosed sources an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see is straightaway brought within the ambit of s. 271(1)(c) provided that conditions specified therein are satisfied. The mere fact that the total returned income is less than eighty per cent of the total income assessed should be sufficient to bring the case of the assessee within the provisions of s. 271(1)(c). However, this fiction can be displaced by the assessee proving that his failure to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation offered by the assessee regarding the source of investment. Department has not been able to discharge its onus to bring the case within the coils of the Expln. engrafted to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We, therefore, quash the order of penalty and direct the ITO to refund the amount, if collected from the assessee. 6. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
