9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (3) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the petitioner under section 18A of the Act for advance payment of income-tax for the assessment year 1956-57, specifying the petitioner's income as forty-six thousand odd rupees, on the basis of the completed assessment as aforesaid for the year 1954-1955. The petitioner made a counter-estimate for an income of ten thousand rupees and ultimately by exhibit P2, he was assessed on a total income of thirty-four thousand nine-hundred and nine rupees for that assessment year. This was inclusive of a sum of over sixteen thousand rupees received by the petitioner by way of interest on an amount which had been decreed to him as compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, and also of his share of the income of the firm which had taken over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n--..... (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he or it may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty,.... As held by Chagla C.J., in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gokuldas Harivallabhadas *[1958] 34 I.T.R. 98, 105 (Bom.). : The proceedings under section 28(1)(c) in their very nature are penal proceedings, and the elementary principles of criminal jurisprudence must apply to these proceedings and nothing is more elementary at least in this country in crimianl jurisprudence than the principle that the burden of proving that the accused is guilty is always upon the prosecution.... In passing exhibit P7 the Income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t raised this point before the Income-tax Officer. The notice to the petitioner to show cause against the levy did not specify the grounds on which the penalty was sought to be imposed. The petitioner had no doubt raised this point before the revisional authority but it was overruled. In the absence of any indication in exhibit P7 to the contrary, it is reasonable to think that the Income-tax Officer had been influenced also by the fact that this amount was received by the petitioner just a few days before he filed his counter-estimate. The error which the Income-tax Officer could then be deemed to have committed in this respect consisted in allowing himself to be influenced by the receipt by the petitioner of this sum of money which accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
