9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (5) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Road, Indore, during the year 1968 with Mrs. Ramadevi, wife of Shri Kalushankar for a sum of Rs. 35,000. On 6th May, 1969 i.e. during the accounting period, relevant for the asst. yr. 1970-71, the mortgage of the said house was redeemed by Smt. Girjadevi, w/o of the assessee by making the payment of Rs. 35,000 to Smt. Ramadevi. Before the ITO, the assessee explained that the amount in question was paid by his wife, who ultimately purchased the said house. The ITO was not satisfied with the assessee's explanation and required him to produce Smt. Girjadevi. Smt. Girjadevi was produced before the ITO and her statement was recorded by the ITO. In her statement the lady submitted that the sum of Rs. 35,000 was paid by her. The actual words of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alsity of the explanation given by the assessee will not justify the imposition of penalty. The Department has failed to discharge its onus of proving the concealment. 3. Under the amended Act, the jurisdiction to initiate and proceed with the penalty proceedings is with the ITO and not with the IAC and accordingly the IAC has no jurisdiction to levy penalty. 4. Relying upon certain judgement cited by him, it is urged that the present one is not a fit case for levy of penalty. The IAC rejected the above contentions of the assessee. He mainly relied on the statement of Smt. Girjadevi, recorded by the ITO, where she had stated that the amount in question was out of the money given by her husband. The IAC, therefore, concluded that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of penalty on the assessee. It is clearly a case where the explanation furnished by the assessee has not been accepted, but he mere non-acceptance of the assessee's explanation on account of its falsity could be a good basis for making an addition of the said amount in the hands of the assessee, but, would not form the basis for levying a penalty on the assessee under s. 271(1)(c). The above proposition has been clearly laid down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Anwarali(1); CIT vs. Khoday Eswarse(2), and also by the M.P. High Court (CIT vs. Brijlal Manilal). It is true that in terms of the Expln. to s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, the onus lay on the assessee to show that the difference between the income returned and the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
