9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (6) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sits amounting to ₹ 37,000 were in two banks, namely, the Bengal Central Bank Limited and the Punjab National Bank Limited, in the names of the family members of the assessee. The particulars of the deposits were as follows : Rs. Rs. Bengal Central Bank 27-08-1948 7,000 23-10-1948 10,000 do. 10,000 do. 10,000 37,000 Punjab National Bank 15-11-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the court : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the penalty of ₹ 35,000 has been legally imposed upon the assessee under section 28(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act ? On behalf of the assessee, Mr. Dutta put forward the argument that in a proceeding taken under section 28(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act the onus lay upon the Income Tax department to show that the assessee was guilty of the offence mentioned in the section, and the mere fact that the assessee was not able to establish by satisfactory evidence the explanation offered by it with regard to the concealed income did not mean that the explanation was false or that the assessee has been guilty of deliberate suppression of the particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the cash books a sum of ₹ 36,000 has been shown to have been received from various parties. But this amount has not been carried over to the ledger account and there is an attempt on the part of the assessee to create an impression that these items of cash credit had been carried over to the ledger so that the Income Tax Officers attention may not be drawn to it by scrutinising the accounts. On this part of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has stated as follows in the course of its order dated 23rd January 1957 : The assessees argument that only 3,000 was involved and it was brought in and out again and again cannot stand scrutiny for the reason that if it was the same sums there was no need to bring the cash credits f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t books of the assessee, though they really belonged to the assessee and overdrafts have been taken by the assessee on the collateral security of these deposits. In our opinion, the present case falls within the principles laid down by this High Court in a later case, Murlidhar Tejpal v. Commissioner of Income Tax. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are satisfied that there was sufficient material before the Income Tax authorities for holding that there was a willful suppression by the assessee of the particulars of its income within the meaning of section 28(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act and accordingly a penalty of ₹ 35,000 has been validly imposed upon the assessee under that section. For these reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
