1971 (3) TMI 33

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ourt was delivered by PATHAK J.- As many as four questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this court. They are as follows : "(1) Whether the provision for imposition of a penalty under clause (C) of sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is of a penal nature? (2) Whether the onus of establishing the conditions requisite for the imposition of a penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Act lies upon the revenue ? (3) Whether the conditions requisite for the imposition of a penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Act should be established beyond reasonable doubt? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly held that none of the two con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arceners in the assessee's books. The explanation in respect of that amount was also rejected by him. Accordingly the two amounts were included in the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1955-56 as income from undisclosed sources. The assessee did not appeal against the assessment order. Thereafter the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 28(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of each of the two assessment years mentioned above. The assessee attempted the same explanation as had been adduced by it during the assessment proceedings and with the same result. The Income-tax Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 4,500 for the year 1955-56 and a penalty of Rs. 1,200 for the assessment year 1957-58. The ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lication of section 28(1)(c) and the consequent imposition of penalty. The Supreme Court has observed that before penalty can be imposed the entirety of circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed entries represent income and that the assessee has consciously concealed the particulars of his income or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. In that case, having regard to the circumstances, the Supreme Court held that, in the absence of cogent material evidence from which it could be inferred that the respondent had concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished in accurate particulars and that the disputed amount was a revenue receipt, the penalty could not be imposed. Following .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X