9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, did the assessee discharge the burden that lay on it? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) and also in the light of its own finding in the quantum appeal that "true, the Tribunal did not accept the plea that it was because of the reduction in the sale price that the assessee could make a significant increase in the quantity of arrack sold in the second half of the year", the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'the assessee's explanation substantiated with the increase in the turnover' and is not the latter finding inconsistent with/militating against the former finding'? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Rs.35 per litre as against Rs.31 per litre as shown by the assessee for the period from April 1, 1982, to September 30, 1982, and at Rs.30 per litre for the period from October 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983. But, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the sale price of arrack should be taken as Rs.31 per litre throughout the year and that was the reason for reduction of the income from Rs.20,76,130 to Rs.2,68,180. Thus, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs.1,92,188. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a conscious concealment on the part of the assessee proved in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It is this decision of the Tribunal that is challenged before us in this further appeal filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. Learned counsel for the Revenue brought to our notice that the decision of the Full Bench of this court relied on by the Tribunal in CIT v. India Sea Foods [1996] 218 ITR 629 cannot any more be considered to be good law in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in K. P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99. The Supreme Court was confirming the decision of this court in CIT v. K. P. Madhusudanan [2000] 246 ITR 218, wherein this cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal. The assessee's explanation that he had reduced the price of liquor so as to enhance the sales was disbelieved by all the assessing authorities when an addition was made to the income returned by the assessee. Clearly, therefore, it is a case that comes under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Explanation 1 thereof provides that in a case where the explanation is offered which is found by the Assessing Officer to be false or no explanation is offered or an explanation is offered which could not be substantiated and that the explanation was bona fide and all the relevant facts had been disclosed, the amount added in computing the total income of such person shall be deemed to represent the in come in respect of which particulars have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
