9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not accept the credit as genuine and proceeded to treat the same from undisclosed sources. In the course of penal proceedings, the assessee explained that the creditor had confirmed the deposit and that the Tribunal sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 2,000 only for want of evidence in respect of turmeric business done by Shri Rajendrakumar. Dissatisfied with the explanation the ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,100 under s. 271(1)(c). As against this order of the ITO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the AAC. The AAC has restricted the quantum from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 2,000 in view of the fact that the Tribunal in the quantum appeal filed by the assessee has accepted the assessee s version and deleted the sum of Rs. 3,000 out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a revenue receipt. No doubt, the original assessment proceedings for computing the tax may be a good item of evidence in penalty proceedings, the penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original assessment order. So according to the ld. Deptl. Rep. the assessee has given explanation that he has received a sum of Rs. 5,000 from Shri Rajendra T. Shah and the same was confirmed by the depositor who was examined by the ITO on oath. The Tribunal has rejected the contention of the assessee with regards to Rs. 2,000 only on the ground that the explanation now given by the assessee is not plausible but doubtful. As the assessee has given reasonable explanation he should not have been penalised as the department did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e took inconsistent stand at different stages, namely, before the ITO the assessee has stated that he has received a sum of Rs. 5,000 from Shri Rajendra T. Shah and subsequently he has changed the version that he has received Rs. 3,000 from Shri Rajendra by cash on 18th Nov., 1977 and Rs. 2,000 by way of cash on 20th Nov., 1974. 5. We do not agree with the contention of the Deptl. Rep. as on the perusal of the fact it is quite evident that the assessee has taken Rs. 5,000 from Shri Rajendra. If Shri Rajendra in his deposition has stated that he has given Rs. 3,000 at one time and Rs. 2,000 at another time, that cannot be considered to be an inconsistent stand taken by the assessee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
