9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (9) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that he had taken a loan of ₹ 38,000 from three parties and had also invested ₹ 30,000 out of his own savings. The three alleged creditors were examined. One of these creditors, Sri Satnarain Kundu, totally denied having advanced a loan of ₹ 10,000 to the assessee. The other two creditors, Sri Jogendra Nath Sen and Sri Binod Kumar Sen, 4 admitted that they had advanced loans to the assessee, but the Income-tax Officer disbelieved their statements. The Income-tax Officer, however, accepted the version of the assessee that he had withdrawn a sum of ₹ 25,000 from the bank for investment. As regards the balance of ₹ 43,000, the Income-tax Officer held that it represented the secret income of the assessee and adde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have reached the finding that there was deliberate concealment of income on the part of the assessee and, therefore, a penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ought to have been imposed upon the assessee. It was pointed out by learned counsel that in the assessment proceeding the explanation of the assessee as regards the source of his income had not been believed by the income-tax authorities. The case of the assessee was that he had taken a loan of ₹ 38,000 from three parties and had invested ₹ 30,000 from his own savings. Three persons were examined on behalf of the assessee, namely, Sri Satnarain Kundu, Sri Jogendra Nath Sen and Sri Binod Kumar Sen, out of whom Sri Satna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he onus was finally upon the Crown to prove its right to impose what was a severe penalty. The same view has been expressed in a recent decision of this High Court in Khemraj Chagganlal v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1960] 38 ITR 523 and a subsequent decision of this High Court in Lakshmi Narain Shambhuram v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 49 ITR 350 . In our opinion, the present case falls within the principle laid down in these two authorities, and the income-tax department has not in this case discharged the onus of showing that the assessee is guilty of concealment of the particulars of his income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. On behalf of the income-tax department, Mr. Tarkeshwar Prasad invited u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
