9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of Rs.4,65,200/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act?" 2. The assessment year is 1996-97. The assessee who is engaged in job work of repacking of pesticides, filed return of income on 30th October, 1996 declaring total income to be Rs.73,353/-. The assessment was framed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act on 27th December, 2000 on a total income of Rs.12,36,110/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee had shown total receipts of Rs.51,87,706/-. However, on verification of the TDS vouchers filed by the assessee, the total receipts for the year under consideration were worked out at Rs.63,50,467/- which resulted in understatement of receipts to the extent of Rs.11,62,761/-. The Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the total income of such person as a result thereof, shall, for the purpose of clause (c) of the sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. It was accordingly submitted that the section places the onus on the assessee to prove that the explanation offered by it is bonafide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him. Whereas, the Tribunal contrary to the statutory provisions has held that the fact that the explanation offered was not substantiated will have to be established by the Income Tax Department; and that the revenue could not controvert the explanation offered by the assessee is false. It was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. had deducted tax under section 194C to avoid litigation. The books of the assessee could not be produced before the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal as the same were with the retired partners. The tax had been deducted on job work and solvent storage charged by Sandoz India Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that reimbursement received for expenses incurred on behalf of the customer cannot be income in the hands of the assessee and, therefore, expenses on behalf of Sandoz India Ltd. which had been subsequently reimbursed could not be part of the trading receipt. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee had made bonafide claim that the same was not part of trading receipt and that it was only because the assessee cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal has further held that in the present case, the assessee had offered explanation which seems to be a bonafide explanation and that the revenue could not controvert that the explanation offered by the assessee is false. The aforesaid observations made by the Tribunal are clearly contrary to the provisions of the Explanation to section 271(1) of the Act which provides that the onus is on the person who offers such explanation and it is he who is required to substantiate and prove that such explanation is bonafide and that all the facts relating to the same are material to the computation of his total income that is disclosed by him. However, from the facts recorded hereinabove, the Court is of the view that the assessee has suffici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
