9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (10) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition is said to be pending before the CIT. The quantum assessment of the assessee for the year 1970-71 is said to have become final as the AAC has confirmed the addition against which the assessee has not preferred any appeal to the Tribunal. 3. To the show cause notice why penalty should not be levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee appeared through a Chartered Accountant and contended that the assessee had made certain investments in agricultural lands and house properties between 1954 and 1970 by utilising her past savings, sale of jewelleries, amounts received from relatives who are doing business abroad, repayments of loan advanced in earlier years etc. The Chartered Accountant pointed out before the I.A.C. that all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly disproved by the Department. The learned Chartered Accountant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Ali(1), before the I.A.C. and also the decision of the Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Karnail Singh V.Kaleram (2). 4. The IAC considered the arguments and had pointed out that " it is no doubt true that the assessee has come out with a petition under s. 271(4A) but the circumstances under which such a petition was filed by the assessee as mentioned in points 1 to 5 of the facts summarised earlier cannot be forgotten. It is also true that the assessee did disclose all investments made in her name but again various unacceptable pleas were raised to explain the source of such investment which e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances to the effect that the assessee will be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his or her income for the purpose of clause (c)of s. 271(1) if certain conditions are satisfied as stated in the Explanation. The assessee had placed all the cards before the table and it is because of certain difficulties of positive proof that she had offered the investments for assessment. That does not mean that the assessee had done so because of any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on her part. The explanation of the assessee has not, according to us, been proved to be false. In that case the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act itself could not be invoked. We find that the assessee, even though could not explain the sources of her investme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
