9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. If the answer to the first question be in the negative, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 9,500 in the facts and the circumstances of the case? 2. The Hon'ble High Court by its judgment dated 31st Aug., 1979, answered the question No. 1 in the negative i.e, in favour of the department and against the assessee. Their Lordships held that as the return was filed on 10th Dec., 1968, the concealment of income must be held to have taken place on that date, and the law relating to penalty as it stood on that date must be applied for determining penalty and not the law as it stood in the relevant assessment year. However, on the second question Their Lordship remanded the case back to the Tribunal to reconsi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the AAC reduced the addition of Rs. 14,497 by a sum of Rs. 5,000. The AAC held that since the assessee carried on business activities from 1st April, 1954 onward, he could have saved a sum of Rs. 5,000 out of the past earnings. 5. Later on, the IAC took up the penalty proceedings and held that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income in view of the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) r/w the Explanation thereof. Since the return of income was filed by the assessee on 10th Dec., 1968, the IAC levied a penalty equal the amount of income concealed i.e, Rs. 9,500. 6. Against the penalty order passed by the IAC, the assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal cancelled the penalty under s. 271(1)(c), both on legal ground as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pril, 1964, the onus of showing that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee, has been shifted on to the assessee, but in our opinion, this onus had been discharged by the assessee in offering an explanation before the ITO that the amount deposited in his bank account was out of the withdrawals made by him from the books of the firm M/s Agarwal Brothers, Jhansi. It has been found as a fact both by the ITO as well as by the AAC, that the assessee was a partner in the firm M/s Agarwal brothers, Jhansi and that he was carrying on the business from 1st April, 1954 onwards. It was also found that a sum of Rs. 16,716 was withdrawn by the assessee from the books of the said firm on 3rd Feb., 1955. The AAC has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
