9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (7) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed a penalty of Rs. 11,000 in respect of two deposits of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 5,000 on 4th April, 1971 and 6th April, 1971. These deposits were in the capital account and were stated to be out of savings of the assessee. The Income -tax Officer found that the assessee had been assessed in the earlier three assessment years and the total income assessed was Rs. 25,500. It was claimed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Single Member estimated that the assessee could have a saving of Rs. 6,000 at the time when these credits were made. The addition was, therefore, reduced to Rs. 5,000. When the penalty matter went before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner he considered the facts of the case and held that the explanation given by the assessee was not acceptable in respect of Rs. 5,000 as there was no plau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot improbable as he had earned more than Rs. 25,000 in the last three years. A part of the case of the assessee was accepted by the Appellate Tribunal when a saving of Rs. 6,000 was accepted. It was, therefore, submitted that this was not a case of concealment of income, but the rejection of the claim of the assessee in the absence of full evidence in support of the same. It was also pointed out t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the possibility of the money having been available to the assessee prior to this year. There is no material to hold that this was the concealed income of the assessee of this year. Where addition is made by merely rejecting the explanation of the assessee, it cannot be held that the assessee is guilty of concealment. In such circumstances the imposition of penalty cannot be held to be justifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
