9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (4) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, treated the impugned credit of Rs. 15,000 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Addition was accordingly made in the assessment order. The ITO also initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 at the time of the assessment. The assessee submitted reply in response to the show-cause notice. The ITO not being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000. On appeal, the AAC confirmed the said penalty. 2. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up in appeal to the Tribunal. Admitted facts are that Shri Prem Rattan is a brother-in-law of the assessee, the addition in the quantum appeal was sustained even by the Tribunal and that Expln. to s. 271 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the negative burden cast on the assessee by the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) was not discharged. He argues that the assessee discharged the negative burden by having produced Shri Prem Rattan, who affirmed having advance Rs. 15,000 to the assessee. It is said that statement of Shri Prem Rattan was not accepted by the Revenue as he happened to be relation of the assessee and as account books of the father of Shri Prem Rattan who carried on proprietary business styled as Dawarkadas Goverdhandas were not produced. The argument is that because the proof which the ITO required could not be produced, no fraud or gross or wilful neglect could be attributed to the assessee. It is argued that it is not a case where any fraud was exercised or any n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arties. One according to the Revenue is that explanation of the assessee is not acceptable and that the assessee introduced its own concealed income in the books and, therefore, the assessee was guilty of fraud. Other hypothesis as arises from the case of assessee is that Shri Prem Rattan was in possession of savings amounting to Rs. 5,000 and that he received Rs. 10,000 at the time of death of his father. The question for consideration is whether there is any positive evidence from the side of the Revenue to show that the explanation given by the assessee is wholly false. Unless such evidence is available on record and unless the possibility of the assessee's explanation being true is fully ruled out, no penalty can be upheld despite the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
