9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (3) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hortly be stated as follows : The assessee is an individual. The assessment for the year 1957-58 was originally made on January 17, 1958. Subsequently, during wealth-tax proceedings for the same year, it was found that as per net wealth admitted by the assessee, he had 599 1/2 tolas of gold as on March 31, 1957, which was valued at Rs. 45,050. The possession of this gold had at no time previously been disclosed by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings against the assessee under section 34(1)(a) of the Act for reassessing the alleged escaped assessment of Rs. 45,050. During these proceedings the assessee was able to satisfy the Income-tax Officer regarding his purchase of 349 tolas of gold worth Rs. 37,240. For the bal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Lalchand Gopal Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax according to which the onus was on the assessee to prove that the income assessed was not concealed income. With respect, however, we are not able to follow the said decision. There is first a decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gokuldas Harivallabhdas. According to that decision, the onus in penalty matters is squarely on the department ; the assessee has no such onus to discharge. This decision has been followed by the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. L. H. Vora. It has been held that the decision of the Bombay High Court that proceedings under section 28(1)(c) of the Act for imposing a pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in P. K. Kalaswmi Nadar's case. The view in Gokuldas Harivallabhdas's case has been affirmed by the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. L. H. Vora, as also by the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali, where the Allahabad and Madras views have been dissented from. So far as this High Court is concerned, we are bound by our decision, unless we are persuaded to refer the question to a larger Bench for decision ; and as at present advised, we see no reason to take that course. Nothing has been pointed out to us to take a view different from the one taken in Punjabhai Shah's case and the contentions raised have all been considered in that case. We may add that the provisions of section 28(1)(c) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax assessment has been dealt with separately and the liability for penalty has, in addition, been specifically made to depend on the presence of a specific intent which inheres in the expression " concealment of particulars of income " or " deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income ". As the liability for penalty is dependent on the presence of such an intent, the revenue must establish such intent, either directly or indirectly, by bringing on record material from which such an intent could reasonably be inferred. It may be that in conceivable cases the mere inability of the assessee to satisfactorily account for the source of certain receipts, which the revenue has presumed, in the absence of satisfactory explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
