9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act ?" The facts as stated are that the assessee, Chandi Prasad Khaitan, submitted his return for the assessment year 1947-48, but it was found that he had concealed his income of Rs. 1,75,000. The assessee had a bank account in the Fountain Branch of Punjab National Bank Limited, Delhi, wherein a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was deposited on April 1, 1947. He could not give a satisfactory explanation for this deposit. First, he made an attempt to deny the existence of this bank account in his name, but, subsequently, he admitted that his friend, P. C. Poddar, had remitted the money to him from Calc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n it was held that if there is no evidence on the record, except the explanation given by the assessee and this explanation is found to be false, it does not follow that the receipt constitutes his taxable income. It cannot be said that the findings given in the assessment proceedings for determining or computing the tax are conclusive. However, this finding was held to be good evidence and it was held that, before imposing penalty, the factum of circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. Learned counsel for the Revenue has accepted that the burden is alw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y proceedings as well, but it was held that the penalty could not be levied solely on the basis of the finding given in the order of assessment. Kandaswami Pillai v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 612 (Mad) and V. P. Samtani v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 693 (Cal) are also cases wherein it was held that penalty under section 271 (1) (c) can be levied when the assessee concealed his income. In L. K. Shaik Mohd. Bros. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 808 (Mad), it has been held that, in penalty proceedings, the burden of proof is on the Revenue but when there was a finding arrived by the Tribunal based on the material in the assessment proceedings that there was conscious concealment and deliberate avoidance of assessable income by the assessee, then the levy of penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition. He had totally denied the bank account with Punjab National Bank Limited at Delhi and having any monetary transaction with Shri P. C. Poddar. All these and other matters have not been considered by the Tribunal while cancelling the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The finding in the quantum appeal and the conduct of the assessee and the nature of the explanation offered by the assessee are all relevant considerations while disposing of an appeal against imposition of penalty. The Tribunal was bound to consider the evidence in support of the findings given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. A good piece of evidence though not conclusive, has been completely ignored by the Tribunal and the Tribunal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
