9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assessing Officer disbelieved the version of the assessee about the loans and the capacity of the loanees. Hence, the amount was computed as the assessee's income and penalty proceedings were initiated. The Assessing Officer, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, levied penalty on the ground that the explanation offered by the assessee was not satisfactory and the credits were held not genuine. Consequently, he levied penalty, quantifying it at a sum of Rs. 20,536. The assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Madras (for short "the CIT"). Before the Commissioner of Income-tax, the assessee reiterated the contention that the assessee had filed confirmation letters from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal would also, at the fag end of the order state that the present case squarely comes under clause (B) of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961-for short "the IT Act"). We rather feel that the Tribunal here committed a mistake in quoting the relevant provision. Clause (B) of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was not then in existence, that is to say, during the relevant assessment year 1984-85. In Explanation 1 under clause (B), the words, "and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him" were inserted, and the following proviso was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely lies on the shoulders of the assessee. The assessee filed a reference application before the Tribunal and the same was rejected. The aggrieved assessee resorted to the present action---Tax Case Petition No. 547 of 1997---requiring the Tribunal to state a case and refer the questions of law, as below, for the opinion of this court : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 20,536 imposed by the Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the applicant was not able to establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
