9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (4) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o income-tax after an amount of ₹ 28,000 and odd recorded in its accounts as a deposit made by Sita Ram had been treated as income of the assessee. Sita Ram was Ram Kumar's son's wife's brother and had no means. The business that he carried on was a petty business and he could not have possessed the huge amount of ₹ 28,000 which could be deposited by him with the Hindu undivided family. He maintained no accounts and did not even pay income-tax. There was no person bearing the name of Sita Ram carrying on the business which he said he was carrying on in the locality and a letter written to Sita Ram carrying on business was returned undelivered. He also did not explain why he carried the amount of ₹ 28,000 in his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest in respect of a part of the joint estate while retaining their status as a joint family and holding the remaining property as property of a joint and undivided family. Consequently, the Hindu undivided family continued in spite of the alleged partition of the business and an order under section 28(1)(c) imposing penalty upon it could be passed. Section 25A(3) of the Income-tax Act lays down that a Hindu undivided family is to be presumed to retain its status for all purposes of the Act so long as a certificate under section 25A(1) is not issued. In this case no certificate under section 25A(1) was issued before the penalty proceedings were commenced and, therefore, the family was to be presumed to be undivided. This principle was appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e other case also it was observed that the fact that an assessee is not able to establish by satisfactory evidence the explanation offered does not mean that it was false or that he had been guilty of deliberate suppression of the particulars of his income. But Ramaswami C.J. and Kanhaiya Singh J. observed at page 527 that if the explanation offered by the assessee is deliberately false it is possible to argue that there is material justifying the imposition of penalty under section 28(1)(c). Here the finding given by the Income-tax Officer was that the explanation offered by the assessee was deliberately false. This court has held in Lal Chand Gopal Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 48 ITR 324 that: If a receipt is income but i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
