9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (10) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the provisions of section 28(1)(c) were attracted ?" The material facts are these : The original assessment of the assessee was completed on 28th January, 1950, on an income of Rs. 8,350 from business and Rs. 100 from property. On 19th February, 1952, a notice under section 34 was issued on the basis of information received that the assessee had purchased a house on 30th August, 1948, for Rs. 14,500. The source of money for purchasing that property was not disclosed. The explanation furnished was that, though the sale deed and the property stood in the name of the assessee he was in fact a benamidar for his wife. According to the assessee, the sum of Rs. 14,500 was gifted to his wife by her mother. The wife did not go into the witn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hindu undivided family and in the course of the assessment proceedings, the explanation given that the amount really belonged to the wife of one of the members was disbelieved and the impugned sum was added as income from an undisclosed source. When it came to the penalty proceedings the mere rejection of the explanation in the assessment proceedings was made the basis for imposing the penalty. The Patna High Court, in those circumstances, pointed out that penalty proceedings are penal in character and go to show that the assessee was guilty of the offence mentioned in that section. Further, that the mere fact that the assessee was not able to establish by satisfactory evidence the explanation offered did not mean that the explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereafter, the burden undoubtedly shifted to the assessee to prove that he was only a benamidar for his wife and that he had nothing to do with this property or the income therefrom. On the facts and the circumstances of this case, therefore, it must be held that the penalty proceedings under section 28(1)(c) were attracted. It was attempted to be argued by learned counsel for the assessee that the Income-tax Officer who had levied the penalty was different from the one who had given the assessee an opportunity under section 28(3) of the Act, and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty. No such grievance appears to have been made before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and no facts bearing upon it have been set out in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
