TMI Blog1971 (1) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ite penalty for concealment X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscrepancy and he gave the explanation that the discrepancy was due to the wrong naming of the grains by the bank authorities, that certain stocks of one Amar Singh were also pledged to the bank and that it was the general practice to declare 5 per cent. excess grain. The explanation was not accepted. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner restricted the addition to Rs. 25,406(?). It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to Rs. 8,000. On second appeal, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that merely because the explanation given by the assessee had not been accepted by the taxing authorities it could not be held that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income so as to make him liable to penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. It came to the conclusion that as there was no positi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances of the case, could not amount to proving that he had concealed the particulars of his income. It was held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali that in the absence of cogent material evidence, apart from the falsity of the respondent's explanation, from which it could be inferred that the respondent had concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|