9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment to prove that there was concealment of income ? (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee could be said to have discharged the onus which lay on it under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c)?" Briefly stated, the facts are that, in respect of the said assessment years, the assessments were completed by the Income-tax Officer. Subsequently, a raid was conducted on the premises of the assessee under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act and certain documents were seized. Before any further proceedings could be taken pursuant to the said raid, the Voluntary Disclosure Act of 1976 was promulgated. Taking advantage of this Act, the assessee filed disclosure under section 14(1) disclosing concealed income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cancelled the imposition of penalties. The Department then filed a second appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal but, by a common order dated October 10, 1980, the said appeals were dismissed. It is thereafter that the aforesaid questions of law were referred to this court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the Department that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee on the ground that the Department had not discharged the onus of proof. It may here be noticed that, in respect of the assessment years in question, the Tribunal had followed its earlier orders in respect of the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71 and 1972-73, wherein the cancellation of the penalties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r cent. but which shall not exceed one and a half times the amount of the tax, if any, which would have been avoided if the income as returned by such person had been accepted as the correct income. Explanation. -Where the total income returned by any person is less than 80 per cent. of the total income (hereinafter in this Explanation referred to as the correct income) as assessed under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 (reduced by the expenditure incurred bona fide by him for the purpose of making or earning any income included in the total income but which has been disallowed as a deduction), such person shall, unless he proves that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Department, the Tribunal has erred in deciding in favour of the assessee. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme court in Mussadilal's case [1987] 165 ITR 14 is clearly applicable to the present case. We may here observe that the Supreme Court has reiterated its earlier view in CIT v. K. R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49. The assessee was clearly not entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the disclosure scheme because lie did not pay the tax as contemplated by the Voluntary Disclosure Act. The filing of a revised return disclosing Rs. 50,000 more than what was originally assessed, in each of the assessment years, was a clear admission of previous concealment of income which the assessee had returned originally. The Department could v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
