9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 69 of I.T. Act being deeming provisions though approvable for the assessment, cannot be made basis for the purposes of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act?" 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows: A search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132 of the Act on 10th August, 1983 at the business as well as residential premises of Sri Ratan Lal and his allied concerns. During the search and seizure operations certain incriminating material in the form of books, loose papers and documents were recovered and seized. The assessment order for the Assessment Year 1983-84 was framed including ₹ 20,000/- as unaccounted investment found in the book No.9 and C-1 seized, ₹ 1,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the first Appellate Authority to delete the penalty in respect of additional profit on account of gross profit rate. All those arguments more or less apply to the penalty sustained by the first Appellate Authority in respect of ₹ 20,000, ₹ 37,000 and ₹ 3,852. We are also impressed by the argument that the provisions of section 69A are deeming provisions, penalty proceedings cannot stand. In this view of the matter, we hold that ingredients of section 271(1)(c) were not present and penalty sustained by the first Appellate Authority in an amount of ₹ 37,000, ₹ 3,852 and ₹ 20,000 is cancelled." However, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In our considered opinion in the absence of any plausible explanation given by the assessee for not incorporating the payment of ₹ 37,000/- made by bank draft in the regular books of account, necessary inference is that he has concealed particulars of his income. The amount having been added under Section 69A of the Act nonetheless is to be treated as income of the assessee and the burden was upon the assessee to prove that there was no concealment of income. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in deleting the penalty only on the ground that the addition was made under Section 69A of the Act which is a deeming provision. 8. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
