9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was sent to this court. In the present case, the assessment year in question is 1968-69. The assessee filed the return for the year 1968-69 showing a loss of Rs. 690 from business only. Thereafter, on August 27, 1971, the assessee again filed a revised return showing a total income of Rs. 10,284, out of which Rs. 4,340 comprised of income from house properties and Rs. 5,944 from business. The assessment was, however, completed on an income of Rs. 26,010. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were initiated by the Income-tax Officer and the matter was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as the minimum penalty leviable exceeded Rs. 1,000. The Inspecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at) and held that the Department had not brought home the concealment and had not established that the income estimated by it was the true income of the assessee. At this stage, it will be pertinent to mention that the Tribunal, in its order while considering the case of the assessee for the assessment year in question, has nowhere found that the explanation of the assessee was an acceptable one. In fact, the Tribunal could not say so, as factually no explanation has been advanced by the assessee. A perusal of the Tribunal's order, while dealing with the assessee's case for the assessment year in question, shows that the Tribunal has accepted the assessee's submission that the onus lay upon the Department even though, as already stated abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of evidence. Once the Explanation is attracted, the law raises a legal presumption that the assessee was guilty of concealing the particulars of his income and thus the onus to dislodge that presumption is placed squarely on the assessee and it is on him to show that this has not arisen from any fraud or wilful neglect on his part. I have already stated above that the assessee has advanced no explanation, whatsoever, in this case. Even if any explanation would have been advanced, it is not the law that any and every explanation of the assessee must be accepted. The explanation of the assessee for the purpose of avoidance of penalty must be an acceptable explanation. It is true that there have been some cases taking a view that once t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
