9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (9) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en disclosed by the assessee in the first instance: (a) unexplained investment in house property Rs. 9,000 (b) Income from truck plying business Rs. 6,000 (c) Unexplained investment in Fixed Deposit Rs. 10,000 . Total Rs. 25,000 He, therefore, intimated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c). Ultimately he levied a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under s. 271(1)(c). On appeal, the assessee got a relief of Rs. 15,000 against the balance penalty of Rs. 10,000 the assessee appealed to the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal in its turn held as under: "We have heard the representative of the parties in this appeal. The amount of Rs. 10,000 which is now in dispute is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich we were constrained to make while hearing the quantum appeal: "It has been brought- to our notice by the ld. D.R. that although the disputed FDR was purchased in the name of the assessee on 30th Dec., 1971, no mention of the same was made by his wife Smt. Tulsibai in her voluntary disclosure petition made in Sept., 1972. At that time the total amount disclosed was Rs. 21,000 which was said to represent her income for the asst. yrs. 1969-70 to 1972-73.0ut of the above amount the ITO found that Rs. 8,000 was invested in purchase of a house and Rs. 9,600 towards the purchase of a FDR in her name in Dec., 1972. Thus the lady was not in a position to effect any savings out of which she could make a deposit of Rs. 10,000 in the name of her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 which the lady got prepared in her own name was dt. 29th Dec., 1972 and since the assessee is having a financial year as his accounting period, this lady could have earned something between 1st April, 1972 to 29th Dec., 1972 and that amount could have been utilised towards the purchase of her own draft. What we mean to say is that although it is not likely, it is still possible that this money may have actually belonged to the lady because by 30th Dec., 1971 she had about Rs. 20,000 with her out of which she had invested only Rs. 8,000 for the house and the balance could be utilised for the purchase of this draft. It is correct that thereafter it would be difficult for her to purchase an other draft in her own name on 29th Dec., I972 but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the explanation is unacceptable, because the lady did not disclose this money in her own disclosure under the voluntary disclosure scheme, but this fact does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the explanation was false to the knowledge of the assessee. it may be that the lady omitted to mention this amount and for that if anybody is responsible it is Smt. Tusibai. The fact remains that the swore an affidavit in the assessment proceedings themselves that this money belonged to her and our discussion above shows that it is not wholly impossible. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it would not be safe to maintain any penalty upon the assessee in the circumstances of the case. we accordingly accept the appeal and cancel the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
